skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
but this might teach to have some kind of fun

too often lessons are sadistic chores

ps: I also beg to differ about finger pattern, I've seen some seasoned piano players doing just whatever worked, the kinetics of playing allow for more than one pattern most of the time
No. It's not what Ken is trying to correct, because this is an opinion, not an interpretation of the law.

Furthermore, as for the law, there is a difference between platforms and publishers. Section 230 says that platforms will not be treated as publishers.
Install ESXi-Arm Step by Step on Raspberry Pi 4
which is why the legal exemption should be tossed entirely, and new publishers like twitter and facebook who have demonstrated control of what gets seen on their platform, should be liable for the content on their platforms.
In case you haven’t noticed, the willful misinterpretation of section 230 that popehat is describing is so common on HN that it has effectively become the party line, and any attempts to correct such “misunderstandings” (lies) are met with heavy downvoting.
Actually I think the value system of rationality is based on the (arguably irrational) belief in the supremacy of rationality.

This is an ahumanist or post-humanist value system. Rationalism becomes a movement of transcendence from mortality, fleshly desires, the unconscious, and nature.

The rationalist worships the neural network.
Its actually worse -- advancement at work is often based on emotional and social intelligence, which is not fully correlated to intelligence of your subject matter.
Twilight of the Media Elites
> In general, I'm not blown away with Canonical's track record.

Yeah, they really wanna be like Apple, but end up being more like Google, starting a lot of projects and abandoning them in couple of years.
Taxi industry had its karma coming. Prior to Uber, ratfuckers would sit behind the wheel and rip off the clients.

Maybe there was some place in the world where taxis were clean and taxi drivers honest, but in my corner of the world they were synonymous with low-key mafia.
"Flash enhanced hi-bandwidth site" doesn't work.

javascript:void(window.open('flashindex.html', 'Welcome', 'width=800,height=600,left=0,top=0, location=no, menubar=no, status=no, toolbar=no, scrollbars=no, resizable=yes'))

Fortunately, he had the foresight to have a "Traditional lo-bandwidth HTML site" as well.
>You're trying to get away from a service and tourism economy where everyone else is (somewhat rightfully) out to screw you for every dollar you're worth.

I wouldn't characterize this as someone trying to "screw" someone. It's just a consequence of demand outstripping supply, and hence the way society allocates the resources in low supply is by who can pay the highest prices.

If anyone comes up with a better way to allocate scarce resources, I'd love to know.
Show HN: Look up 50 facts on any lead anywhere for 5 cents
Not if you have a 6-3 majority on the court... 1A is whatever SCOTUS says it is.
That's nonsense. Showing "their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral" is not an insurmountable bar. It's just inconvenient for Big Tech's supporting interests.
Legal technology company DISCO raises at $785M valuation
> How do you know who is actually lying if half the information is removed from the sources that you usually read?

As far as I know, they're not broadly removing "half the information" (which I'm taking to refer to conservative viewpoints), but disinformation related to QAnon, voting, covid, etc.

Disinformation is not something that will help anyone make better judgements.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-media-social-media-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54443878

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/11/faceboo...

https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-twitter-block-trump-post-...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-election-exclusi...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-fa...
From a libertarian standpoint, the government regulating "neutrality" is a nightmare.

Should Hacker News be required to treat all links the same? If not, exactly how do you think a government "neutrality" mandate would work?

Because such a mandate means that if the HN moderators are a little biased, the whole shebang would become liable for any defamatory comments posted here. That's a government-mandated sword of Damocles hanging over every single moderation decision made here.
Online censorship is toppling statues that haven’t been built yet
Would forums like HN survive? I can think of a few incidents where malicious information about people made the front page then turned out to be false. Is HN prepared to defend against lawsuits about that? Is HN prepared to lose lawsuits about that?

It sounds like you're basically suggesting that making the internet useless is a good thing, because maybe something something cool will come out of the ashes and there's a chance it could be even better after a bunch of extremely hard and broad problems are solved. I don't like those odds.
How does this work for a "Letters to the Editor" type section in a newspaper?

Or what separates a heavily moderated online forum from a volunteer run online magazine? Is it the asking for submissions part?
From the comment:

> If platforms are going to start acting like publishers, they should no longer get special treatment when compared to other publishers.

The GP doesn't argue that Section 230 says this or that, they're arguing that internet companies who act like news sites should be subject to the same laws as news sites.
I sincerely believe that this is the biggest threat democratic forms of government have ever faced. This form of government depends heavily on a public that places some level of trust in its institutions, and are free of targeted campaigns of mass manipulation.
I love that theme and it matches notes 2-4, but nope. I'm fairly sure it's an intro/outro/solo melody over a rock song.
That would make Hacker News liable for any defamation posted in the comments section. Well done, you just killed HN.
If you turn auto-updates off, you're just reinventing early 2000s desktop security and attackers everywhere will thank you. Updates need to be automatic but there needs to be stricter rules about notifications to users about changes in ownership or functionality. A huge fraction of this would go away if corporate liability didn't allow hiding all of this in terms of service.
Everybody is being censored on all these platforms, it's called moderation. Most people appreciate it, including you or you would be commenting on 4chan instead of the heavily moderated HN.
Seems like a pretty easy call if the site in question blocks peoples' accounts for posting an article from the 4th largest print news publication in the USA.
Well they aren't news sites. They are private entities providing general platforms. Speech, per the US legal system, is more than just what one says, but also the actions one takes. These companies have not only a right, but a duty as publicly traded companies to protect their platforms as they see fit.

I fail to see how moderators on vBulletin boards in 2002 are any different then moderators/admins/algorithms on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc in 2020. The scale is different, sure, but you are not entitled to the amplification of these platforms just because they are bigger the same way you weren't entitled to the amplification on those old vBulletin board systems.
Oddly, I feel compelled to defend that bit of glibness. Sure, the Pope vetoed the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage because he was under extreme pressure to do so and Henry VIII left the Catholic Church out of frustration with this rather than anything resembling sympathy for what became the English Reformation, but the point was the Church's stance on being above worldly politics was borne out of being so integral to worldly politics they needed excuses. It'd be great for the rationalist movement if their leading figures were so influential on business, politics and actually existent AI they had to feign disinterest in them

I guess the flip side of that argument also lives in British politics: the PM's advisor Dominic Cummings, who fulfils a Rasputin-like role of being on the one hand a magnet for criticism and on the other hand someone the PM will go to unprecedented extremes to continue to receive advice from[1]. He's also someone that has Overcoming Bias and Yudowsky in his short blogroll and sniggers at his detractors that "don't understand epistemological uncertainty" when his comments that his priorities "in some possible branches of the future... will be an error" get media attention. An archetypal 'rationalist' who is incidentally currently the UK's most influential policy wonk.

[1]Usually British PMs don't accept their Chancellor's resignation so their adviser can fire his staff, or refrain from firing advisers whose actions become the #1 subject of public outcry from their core voter base.
> We have not seen such an egregious abuse of open source software with any other company. Most companies that make use of a large amount of opensource actually contribute a fair amount back.

I don't think your claim about Amazon is true. But even if it is, it's not relevant. None of the OSI licenses require improvements to be contributed back to the original project. The most restrictive of them simply requires improvements to be open to the user.

The intention of open source licenses was never to force those who redistribute the software to improve on it. It was to provide end users with the freedom to be able to do that themselves, by distributing the improvements as well.

It's unfortunate that licenses from a generation ago don't adequately cover all the nuance of cloud computing. But the reality is that open source licenses were never about preventing companies from profiting at the expense of original developers. They were about user freedom. If you're unhappy with the way a company is using the software you open sourced, that is a sign you weren't prepared to commit to what open source means, philosophically.

Something like the AGPL would be preferable, if also more controversial. Then you'd also have a peanut gallery of people telling you your software is "source available" instead of open source.
Rationality is about internal consistency of beliefs and values.

"Rationalism is inherently flawed in that it lacks a value system" strikes me as a category error. Giving you a value system isn't its job; instead, it provides a toolbox for identifying and resolving contradictions in your preexisting beliefs and values.

(Since we all work with imperfect information about the world, internal consistency is far from a guarantee of accuracy; but it improves the odds.)
> Logic is definitely important, but do you really fault a degree program and a kid's (young adult) ability on something that is never stated that way in the real world? Most people just want to graduate and get on with life.

He is not interviewing people who want to "get on with life". He's interviewing people who are entering a Master's program. In most areas of engineering, and especially in CS/SW, one can get pretty good pay and make a living without an MS. So for MS and beyond, universities care more about academic rigor, etc, and whether what they learn is useful in industry is given a much lower weight (rightly so).

A lot of universities really don't want MS/PhD students who are using it to get a promotion or bump in pay. Some do compromise for MS students assuming they're paying full tuition.

Chances are quite high that when they take a grad level course, the professor will expect you to know this. I did grad studies in a different engineering discipline, and professors generally had low tolerance for students who did not know something this basic.

Finally:

> on something that is never stated that way in the real world?

I'm probably biased, but I often state this in the real world :-) It has not been a problem in professional settings.
Word of Warning: Relicta free trial
Because rationalism is more about not taking avoidable losses by frankly being stupid than producing outliers by doing something normally stupid or crazy that pays off and get noticed. Nobody pays attention to the 999 times someone prays for rain and fails but the 1 time it does and it called "working a miracle". That sort of selection bias is in play here but worse as they ignore the background yields of regularly applied rationalism.

Not to mention the projection involved - "success" is easy to come by if you have a crowd of rubes paying for what they want to believe but rationalism doesn't offer anything with such popular appeal directly.

Really the whole article is anti-intellectualism fallacies strung together in a "If where the rays of the sun don't create gold why aren't you rich!" style fallacious retort.
Follow the First Amendment.
the engine i'm not surprised, the wheel I am.. I thought powered steering was only amplifying, not fully controlling.
Fair enough. I just don't know if it makes sense to expect tech companies operate with any values besides making money. That's why I say "don't ask or beg them to be courteous, force them to either be courteous or 'don't use my code', which a license can do."

Frog & scorpion don'cha know.

The other thing that annoys is the fact that the permissiveness of the license is precisely why AWS used it, probably part of why it's popular, why he can tweet about it & build his brand etc. The author has and continues to benefit from the permissiveness of the license. To enjoy the upside of permissive but complain that the downside isn't fair comes off as a bit self-serving.
Well, as soon as you'd look for and find any one of your messages in wireshark to use as an example, then you'd notice that the packet has not only that message but others as well.
No one's saying why I'm being downvoted, but
Antonio Garcia-Martinez is making similar arguments about the media being fractured at the middle-age bracket in his latest piece: https://pullrequest.substack.com/p/twilight-of-the-media-eli...
From the Viniyoga perspective, this book is incorrect in terms of the complete breath.
> They literally just took your (in this case company's) side.

Yes, this the point I was making. This has always been the case: it's just that now it's become much more pathological and widespread on the platform. Partly it sounds like that's due to changes in policy/strategy on the part of Glassdoor, but I think it's also because companies have realised that you can just ask Glassdoor to remove reviews and they will.

Do I feel bad about that specific review being taken down? Not at all, because it was absolutely slanderous to others this person had worked with. But the fact that it happened without any further process does point to an underlying problem.

It's a long time since I've used the site but I believe companies might have the right to post public responses to reviews. Beyond this maybe some sort of dispute resolution process would be the way to go.

Still, I can't really figure out how to make it work: if it's cheap and easy for reviewers to post reviews, and cheap and easy for companies to get them taken down or otherwise manipulate them, you're always going to end up with a review service that's essentially worthless and can't be trusted.
right, which is why section 230 should be repealed, because they're censoring politically and control what people see, shaping public opinion in large ways. They should be liable for the content of their platforms since they demonstrated the ability to control whats on them.

They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their platform.
I run into successful rationalists all the time in the business world. They might not self-label (I don't, though I acknowledge that the sequences have drastically changed my life), but we're definitely in the demo he's talking about. Yes, there may be some selection bias, but I know for a fact that the way I'm able to contribute at work has quite a bit to do with things I've learned from the rationalist community.

It definitely improves things to work some of the relevant lingo into your work environment so you can more easily help colleagues grok why the perspective you have on a topic seems very different, and I can see an argument that in many areas you'd be better off with specific knowledge. But is that the trade-off? Not in my experience. You can have both, or at least 80% of both.
This is a great post, and i'm a huge fan of Glen Weyl, but Glen Weyl is the biggest purveyor of illegible-to-nontechnical-people technocratic ideas i've ever seen. I think his ideas are great and interesting, but I don't really understand on what level he views himself as separate and distinct from the rest of technocracy.
I am currently a data scientist and depending on the position, it may be a good fit for you. I went into this field for similar reasons to you (I did not enjoy traditional SWE internships but liked coding and math). My current position is more of a generalist role where I spend equal time:
- Building dashboards and doing simple analysis (mostly SQL)
- Building data pipelines and other data services (mostly python)
- Doing deep analyses and building data products (i.e. recommendation engines) using machine learning.
I also spend more time interacting with various others in the company and get more involved in the business side of things than most traditional software engineers.
Would you also advocate that we bring back the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, so that news sources would be required to present contrasting viewpoints? Arguments against that were based on the first amendment; that a free press should have complete editorial control over the content that they distribute.
They wouldn't. There's far more to a Debian package than simply aggregating a bunch of files into a container and calling it a day.

Making sure it's all correctly split into runtime, library, development, documentation, debug etc. parts, and ensuring that each part has the correct dependencies upon other packages in the system is a much more involved task. But it's this part that adds most of the value compared with simply building from source.

Making a "package" is easy. But the real point of packaging is integration with the wider system, and that part requires actual effort. Docker doesn't even attempt it. Docker is easy and convenient primarily because it pretends that problem doesn't even exist. It does the easy 10% of the job while ignoring the 90% of the work that takes the time and effort.
Really? You think we can here in this thread all agree to what it means for an algorithm or content-removal practice to be "politically neutral"?

If so, please go ahead! But I seriously doubt it. This is a thing political philosophers argue about in journals to this day, that lawyers argue about in SCOTUS cases to this day, and that has been litigated to death in thousands of HN threads over the years.

The question of what "politically neutral" means is perhaps the MOST political question there is. The delineation of political speech from non-political speech defines the playing field.

And even setting aside genuine disagreement, politics does not operate on good faith. It operates on power. In practice, the bill does not outline specific criteria. So "politically neutral" will mean whatever the FTC wants it to mean. Which means it will mean whatever the appointees of the FTC chair want it to mean.

Josh Hawley, of course, knows and understands how power works. He would not be proposing this bill if the big tech companies were right-biased. Democrats also understand how power works. So, in this counter-factual world of right-biased social media, it would be Democrats clamoring for federal intervention and Hawley decrying the "Democrat attack on the most successful American companies". Do you really believe otherwise?
> a bunch of volunteers and not a big silicon valley company with big operations team

This is probably the key, as they're happy to keep using simple, proven tools that worked for decades and will keep working.

They're not worried about "scaling", "microservices", creating problems so they can solve them and brag about it at conferences & on the (seemingly mandatory now) engineering blog, etc.

It's just a bunch of people running the thing in their spare time and their incentive is to make it so that it requires as little time investment as possible, instead of over-complicating the stack on purpose so they can fill up their resume with buzzwords.
> Showing "their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral" is not an insurmountable bar.

It is when political appointees are the ones who judge if you've cleared the bar.
shrug if thats the cost of stopping technocratic control of the flow of information in society and openly censoring, its cheap.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

If they don't get special treatment as opposed to publishers, why is explicitly mentioned that they shall not be treated as the publisher? If there's no difference, what's the point in that?
Google got sick of other services bragging about their much smaller attacks being "the biggest"?
My understanding is that Zig is also strongly committed to working out as many kinks as possible so that 1.0 can be an extremely stable release, so they are running as fast as possible to make mistakes in the language. In that sort of an environment it doesn't really make sense to solidify docs.
In Prague (in 1997, at least), the taxis were literally run by the (Russian) mob.
> technically the Linux VM is running beside a Windows VM

Say what now? I think I was correct in my initial comment.
> Can't remember where I read it, but the idea was that using existing vaccine tech to knock out pretty much any virus is a major financial undertaking. Now multiply that by 100x, or however many common-cold-causing viruses exist.

It seems quite strange to me that this should be multiplicative. There should be some economics of scale, especially for viruses from the same family.

(It is also quite strange to me that the SARS-2 vaccine takes some long, as if we have to invent the vaccine technology from scratch. But granted, I don't know much about this field. Maybe it is not a technology problem but mostly testing and approval)
I think the odds are pretty good. There's a lot of smart & motivated people who really like the internet, who would probably go a long way to replace it.
Hmm. I think the #1 job of a manager is to hire, motivate and let go of people the right way. It's up to them to keep working, and it's up to the manager to figure out how to do that no more often than required.

If you do it right, it's like 90% teambuilding and 10% line management, IMO. When that ratio is inverted is where you see mediocre management.
> so why would you expect software engineers to understand a very precise definition of an operator they don't use

I wasn't in grad school for a CS program, but one of my friends was. One thing I noticed is how often the papers he read, as well as the course material, used formal logic symbols.[0] His research area was very much applied - not theoretical.

Not knowing "basic" things like what implies means formally is likely going to hurt you in a MS program.

[0]: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10a.htm