skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The fact that they censor everyone including the press secretary so quickly is scary. Like the voice of the president got twitter ban like a commoner with the snap of a finger.
In the past people believed in lots of stupid things like "god exists", "the poor deserves its situation and the rich has earned its situation", "hatred toward blacks, Jews, neighbor country, homosexuals, handicapped and many more", "kings are good and democracy bad", "the strong country has a right to invade the week country", "the rich are evil and the poor saints" and so one.

So I think the idea that stupidity has increased is an illusion. The thing in the modern world is more that the tolerance for stupidity has decreased so we discover it more. The sad truth is also that each one of us believes in lots of stupid things but we are more interested in finding errors in other when in self improvement. Like Jesus said, "and why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
Modern Running Shoes and Heel Striking
You can, if you think of it like a Ponzi scheme.
It is possible to use any camera that can display its FOV on a computer screen as we webcam with OBS and OBS-VirtualCam.

I've been using a Sony a6300 as a webcam for a few months now and it works great without any hardware beyond the USB cable between camera and computer.
As long as there is people and society there will be a civilization one way or the other.

You may not like that civilization, but saying a specie cannot survive unless we adhere to democracy and free speech is the product of your upbringing but not the product of objective reality.
I want to love raindrop.

But it's run by one guy, in another country. No thanks.

I wish there were a bookmark manager like this that didn't require the *aaS aspect.
Give me a break, the president should have his twitter account permabanned for all his ToS violations, and he should use official channels like a .gov web site to address the nation, where he can be held more accountable when spreading blatant falsehoods and certainly won't be censored.

This whole sham of using Twitter is a freedom of private speech trick he uses to facilitate ambiguously mixing occasionally factual official statements with trash "protected" speech.

If anyone holds his feet to the fire for tweets, he can simply claim he was acting as a private citizen stating an opinion - obviously the president of the united states wouldn't use twitter for official business!

I look forward to seeing how history treats this embarrassingly incompetent era of american politics.
It should be noted that the technology to do this is quite old. The Williams X-Jet was operational about the time the first Intel x86 processor came off the assembly line. The Army evaluated the technology and decided not to use it at that time about 40 years ago. Here are the specs from Wikipedia:

Specifications (X-Jet)
Data from[citation needed]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 3 ft (0.91 m) approx.
Height: 4 ft 0 in (1.22 m)
Empty weight: 401 lb (182 kg)
Gross weight: 550 lb (249 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Williams F107 turbofan engine, 570 lbf (2.5 kN) thrust (modified)
Performance
Maximum speed: 52 kn (60 mph, 96 km/h)
Endurance: 30–45 minutes
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,000 m)
Thrust/weight: 1.11

More recent turbofan engines combined with modern computer-assisted controls could result in a considerable boost in capability, particularly in reliability by using multiple smaller turbofans.

Given the extreme irresponsibility Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook have shown in the last few days in censoring important voter information, let us hope someone at Homeland is keeping them from buying advanced turbofan engines:
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/big-tech-in-the-tank-for-defen...
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...
https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/kayleigh-mcenany-twitter-has-m...
Our problems are simply symptoms of a business model that’s out of control.

If I had to choose between advertising and free speech, I’d be happy to utterly abolish advertising. Even though that means completely tearing down the current media industry.

Obviously there’s middle ground to be found, but censorship is just treating the symptoms and in the dumbest possible way.

We’re just digging the hole deeper and deeper.
No. The project has no legal entity in the US.
> Running applications reliably and efficiently is an ongoing challenge

Is it? I can take a program written for Windows 95 and run it on Windows 7 (maybe even newer) just fine and it will run reliable and efficiently and integrate better than containers.

It is problem only on Linux because user space ABI keeps breaking.

Notice that the containers run on the same linux kernel and not in VMs, why? Because "we do not break userspace!".
Pluto’s ice-capped peaks are like Earth’s–but not
You could even make the argument that China and Russia are actively feeding into things like this in order to make people anti-free speech/thought and cause internal strife/erosion because our eroding institutions (including free speech) gives them a leg up globally to set their own agendas in motion.
You went from one extreme position to the other.

I don't understand the position ACAB or NCAB (N = No). Clearly, some cops are bastards.

In The Netherlands my experiences with the Dutch police have been good or at worst neutral. I have been surprised numerous times how downright friendly and relaxed cops here can be. Even at the few demonstrations I been to (most notably two anti war in Iraq demos) no trouble whatsoever.

Even if you speak for US only I have a hard time believing the entire police force of US is rotten.
A really good post - didn’t think of it that way
I was born in 1974. Netscape's browser (what became Mozilla) was released my junior year of college. It was a cute alternative to gopher and ftp.

Then, newspapers were published once or twice a day. Magazines weekly or monthly. Publishers worked as editors, fact-checkers, and curators (with their various agendas, of course).

The original miracle of internet free speech was the promise that anyone could become a publisher - no more gate keeping by major media companies - no more financial barrier to entry to buy presses, paper, delivery trucks.

Then various platforms emerged to centralize online publishing -- Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LiveJournal, Yelp, ... and thousands more. They took the profit model of traditional publishers (paid advertising), exploited the structural advantages of digital publishing, and gave up the overhead and responsibility of curating and creating content.

Now we are trying to figure out how to manage real time publishing platforms that can't (or won't?) validate identity, won't take responsibility for fact-checking, are open to targeted manipulation by adversaries, and are capable of distributing damaging lies and propaganda with little oversight or financial consequences.

Speech is still "freer" now than when I was a teenager. The reach of an individual voice is massive in today's world compared to the 1980's. When I was young, my community was the people who lived within biking distance. Now it includes all of reddit, twitch, hackernews...

Can we sustain these advances while managing the mob-mentality inherent in human nature? Can we protect our forums from adversarial misuse? Are open platforms that shrug off responsibility for content while collecting advertising profits compatible with democracy?

Looks like we'll find out in the next few years.
"There is no truth, only power. What I’ve been interpreting as truth and rationality has been my own attempt to align my thinking with the political clique that was in power when I was being educated. What I’m interpreting as rising stupidity has been the collapse in power and status of that clique and the political obsolescence of the variety of “truth” and “rationality” I internalized as a child. Those pomo philosophers were right all along."

This is a part of it to be sure. This line of thinking is becoming more and more popular and accepted as the only truth is that there is none. The enlightenment era scientific-liberal approach is rapidly disintegrating. But I don't think the pomo philosophers would actually think an entirely new meta-narrative would be constructed from their ideas. In fact their premise was that there are no true meta-narratives. But they've had parts of their ideas cherry picked to advance a new, illiberal agenda.
> Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

Absolutely, of course. Hate speech and Holocaust denial are censored in Europe generally, and a majority of people in those countries today do say support these bans (i.e. they say "thank god"). Because they saw the kind of hateful thinking that led to WWII, and how shockingly easy it is for people to be convinced of revisionist history, and don't want that to be repeated.

Similarly, libel laws function effectively as censorship, but are widely supported. I think most of us are happy that newspapers can't maliciously print lies about common citizens.

(Edit: love that I'm being downvoted for this -- apparently people don't like these objective facts?)
Distinction without difference. Twitter has the capability to whip up a sizable mob and inflict violence anywhere in the world, on a spectrum from cancel culture to corporate cowering to violent riots to color revolutions.
To level the playing field. The idea of Small Claims Court is to have a cheap way to resolve monetary disputes, without having to rely on complex procedures and expensive lawyers. So, since you as an individual wouldn't have a lawyer when you sue someone for $300, it wouldn't quite be fair if the company was afforded one.

Keep in mind that anything you take to a Small Claims Court you can also take to to a Superior Court, where only lawyers are allowed, unless you're an individual, and are representing yourself.

Not every state bans lawyers from SCC. But in California, you'd only face a lawyer in SCC if you sue them for not returning your money, or they sue you for not paying them their fees.
Who gets to choose who gets pick the things amplified or not?

In today's world these folks get to have a strong influence over how people are influenced.

Handling this well is very important. If people misuse that position than they can and will cause people to be influenced certain ways because of it.
If you are using Google drive will you lose the data on your local as well? I have a huge amount of work, it would be devastating to lose access to it. I do have backups on storage disks, but still...
HCL is a superset of JSON, so tools can still output json. having worked with HCL before for terraform, I can say it is way nicer for human-edited config files than either YAML or JSON.
You're assuming Twitter's intent is to bury the story. Their intent is to not be involved or liable.
WFH when you have errands when it's necessary is all the balance I need!
Yeh but what about wikileaks, trumps taxes, and so many other story. But even if it was policy the fact they banned the press secretary of the united states should give everyone pause.
You can place the irrational in a rational frame of understanding, of course. But if you use a heuristic you are saying "I will use this shortcut even though I don't fully understand why it works".
So your world view is that Harvard professors are eveil and stupid, NY Times reporters are evil and stupid, most modern people are stupid, software engineers are stupid, PhDs are stupid, doctors are stupid, lawyers are stupid, no one has taken advice from their grandmother since 1785, and no one reads the Bible anymore.

Is it possible that becoming an MD might require a base level of mental capabilities and hard work? Is it possible that becoming a Harvard professor in their Math or CS department requires a big helping of skill, work, and luck? Is it possible that passing the Bar exam requires, if not a genius intellect, at least a base level of intellectual capability? Is it possible that all these people you disparage are actually just normal humans doing a pretty decent job at playing a small productive role in running society?

More importantly: do you feel this way about the actual people that surround you -- your significant other, your in-laws, your old school friends, your coworkers, etc.? If so, please talk with a therapist (or your grandmother) about these feelings. This isn't meant in any way as an attack or belittlement. It's meant as genuine advice. Feeling like everyone around you is evil and stupid isn't healthy.
You can still publish! AWS and cloudflare will happily take your money if you're not a neonazi. If you are a neonazi, A) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA B) you can find some mom-and-pop co-lo that will take your money. AFAIK, 8chan is still serving page views.
I disagree -- in industry, it doesn't directly matter if you can globally optimise some theoretical objective function or not, the objective function is always a crude approximation of what's really going on in reality, incorporating a bunch of assumptions, many of which won't be exactly true.

What matters is if you can produce performance at doing a thing that is sufficiently better than the status-quo performance of doing that thing. Things that be completely uninteresting and sub-optimal from a theoretical optimisation perspective and yet provide a lot of real world value and result in successful projects.
If you genuinely believed the police are there to protect you, and not to ensure the status quo is enforced and continues, you are naive, or you are not part of a marginalized group. That is not meant to be an overly hateful statement.

Police (and other law-enforcement) are an exercise of the power of government. The former exists to ensure the latter can continue to exist.

Therefore, police (and law-enforcement) exist to enact laws to preserve the status quo and whatever accepted social mores happen to be in vogue at the time via statute. Protecting you and your loved ones only occurs when your needs align with the desires of the state.

If you happen to be part of a marginalized group, often, power structures dictate that the desires of the state run contrary to your needs, or, more often, the desires of the state are literally enacted to make your life more difficult.

For example - Where I live, we have a saying, "No cops, no problems." This is because a) police take 45+ minutes to respond because we're very rural, b) police generally only respond by taking notes and harassing anyone they find on the scene, regardless of their role, and c) police, once they respond, are well known to run warrants on anyone around just to be able to say they've arrested someone that day (the second part of that is my conjecture, but I also can't come up with a reason they would run warrants on an innocent bystander, regardless of said bystander's past).

My need of having my car not be stolen apparently does not align with the government's need to ensure my father is prosecuted for low-level drug offenses from many years ago. (to use the next word too much, I think) Therefore, police do not have my interests at heart. Please apply this lesson to any other marginalized group to see where the problems with police come from, and why I called you naive.
knowledge management for a bookmark manager?
I wonder what the chances are that the "origin story" is completely bogus - a kind of non-judicial parallel construction.

The more pertinent question is, as you said, whether the info is authentic. The origin story, ultimately, isn't important assuming the information is confirmed.
You're saying it's good that the majority of people who are not in cars live in constant fear for their lives?
taxies are not cheap. Just a weekly grocery run for a month is more then my monthly expenses in my paid for car (gas, maintenance, and insurance). A few more other trips and a car is cheaper. That is before we get into my last taxi was driven by a smoker, and a window was broke on the car. (uber might do better now, but as all uber critics note uber fares don't pay the driver a living wage after real expenses, and thus only work out if you have the car anyway)

It can work out, it depends. How often do you need to use the taxi to not inconvenience your lifestyle? Are you the type that would have a new car or used car? more expensive. Would you do your own car maintenance? Do you life to vacation in remote places where you would have to rent a car? Do you have kids (no taxi has a car seat). How good is the local transit service? Is parking "free" with wherever you live and go (use it or not)? I'm sure there is more.
Some enterprising fans went and adapted Peter Watts' Blindsight as a short film
It's because this is a discussion about free speech, not gun ownership. Gun ownership was just being used as an analogy in the comment you were replying to. They'll also downvote this comment, because it asks why people voted a certain way, which is against HN guidelines.
I think there is too much information around for the average person to filter and process and digest. All three are important parts of living in a society and it looks to me like even with e.g. economic issues alone, it's just very hard for (to be fair) anybody to keep up.

In turn, people reach out to conspiracy theories to simplify the world around them with obvious answers and explanations.

My theory, sort of.
What about jurisdictions with laws that you aren't allowed to intentionally design your system to obscure or forget information that may be relevant to a legal investigation?
That’s fair. I was going to add in a comment about how Taibbi presaged the phenomenon that he’s now complaining about but that seemed like an unnecessary dig.
Reviews have always been a deeply flawed process, particularly anonymous reviews online. The rating system doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and it is easily faked. Companies are incentivized to sell control over reviews to the parties being affected by the free crowd sourced reviews. Think of yelp and the people who give a restaurant 2 stars because another patrons child was crying. Or the onslaught of faked Amazon reviews.

At a previous company, we had someone whose entire job was to talk to coworkers about what they posted on social media, getting good reviews for the shit company online, etc. The most shocking thing about this post to me is how many people actually valued the reviews on Glassdoor. Not sure if I'm too pessimistic/skeptical about this, or if others aren't pessimistic/skeptical enough.
If you're only just finding out that calling 911 is a privilege, you have that privilege. What are you worried about?
We've appointed a Chief Security Officer within our startup that oversees security and HIPAA compliance. We work with Vanta (W18) to ensure compliance (they have automation software and compliance dashboards) and have a third-party auditor as well. I am happy to have our engineering team to tell you more if you wanted to learn! Feel free to message lucia@osmind.org
The most likely culprit for me is that a lot of gullible people weren't exposed to so many stupid ideas before internet which also gave them a quick and easy tool to share them (and therefore amplifying their reach), so their numbers can quickly increase and be louder than ever before in human history.
Signs point to no: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146

It's not that I like censorship, in fact I'm adamantly opposed to it. But saying 'boo censorship, yay free speech' is ducking the real and measurable problem of false content spread by a mix of ignorance and dishonesty.

I support calls for more education and critical thinking, but that takes years to pay off; the answer to high levels of fraud or corruption is not as simple as 'let's just create a culture of honesty', which substitutes the desired outcome for the solution.

Consider also specific examples of disinformation campaigns. It's easy to create the appearance of controversy by attacking the formation of social consensus, and then to point to point to that appearance of controversy as pseudo-evidence that the prevailing public consensus is a deception carried out by The Powers That Be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ - trolling behavior in anti-vaccination forums

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ - tobacco industry disinformation strategies
This is perhaps why we see spelling and grammar called out so often on the internet. We're trying to lift the veil the fiber cables put in front of our eyes and reveal the idiot on the other end, but there's not much to go off of and we cling to whatever evidence we can.
I m entertaining the idea that it is indeed expanding. Well not expanding , but that intelligence is regressing to the mean which is equally bad. People thrive under constraints and struggle. It's what makes games fun to play. Maybe the ease of modern life makes humans complacent. I mean i can't explain why i see so many people struggle when they use an old computer program which used to be commonplace in its day/ observing them shows a clear laziness to do deep-thinking. I m afraid i m becoming one of them too -- the horror!

I can't help but think that we 're lacking the genius giants for which the last century is notorious. Where are the kolmogorovs, the von neumanns, the einsteins, the fred sangers of the past ~40 years? Is there a big gap in the higher end of intelligence? What about the lower end of intelligence? If both are lacking that means we are indeed regressing to become average idiots.

I like to think we already live in idiocracy. People forget however that in that movie, the biggest idiot wasnt President Camacho, it was the people, the way-below-average joes, who are evenly distributed across the political spectrum. (In fact the blind belief that politics alone can bring progress is kind of dumb in itself). Could it be something in the way we eat? There is a well established and colossal drop in testosterone levels in the past ~50 years. After all we are just neurochemical intelligence generators.

(Also why is everyone focusing on social media? That's just a symptom)
The Kroomen acted essentially as guns (oars?) for hire but the author tries his best not to let that get in the way of presenting them as "black slaver hunters". They were strongly opposed to their own enslavement, but not the idea of slavery itself. This article paints a group of people with a unique ethno-occupational identity as some sort of old-timey Black Panthers. Unsurprisingly, the author is American.
Does Google have customer support at all?
> Have any of y'all ever heard of something called "Adobe Creative Cloud", it's...

…something that I have to rent and can no longer own.

See also losing user's data:

* https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21377411/adobe-lightroom-...
Nursing the Nightingales
How can you say its false. The FBI took it seriously. If we said the same about wikileaks or trump taxes we'd all flip out. Twitter shouldn't be the people who get to say whats false or not.
But if the president did make major announcements on HN, he would not be subject to moderation on here? If the president has unilaterally imposed these restrictions on what Twitter can do by virtue of using it, he should make it official and make Twitter a public service. Otherwise, I don't understand how this is different than the president showing up at your house yelling at you with a megaphone and refusing to leave because your property has now "taken on a different role".
I've noticed older people near me just weren't prepared for all the silliness on the internet.

You have to coach them into being more critical of what they read online.
> "the strong country has a right to invade the week country"

Indeed they do.

But not the month country. I mean, maybe they have the right to, but it'd be foolish. And invading the year country would be outright suicide.