skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We have a few issues here:

1. What should be the role, if any, of governments in censorship? The US supposedly has a rule of "none". But there are exceptions. Some kinds of porno. Threats against individuals. Incitement to riot. All of which can be over-used to chill speech.

2. What should be the role of private companies? This is tied in with the role of monopolies. If there were 50 Facebook or Twitter like services, none with more than 20% market share, this would not be a problem. Maybe this is an antitrust problem.

3. Should anonymous speech be as protected as thoroughly as non-anonymous speech? The US has a tradition of protecting anonymous speech. This is partly because the Federalist Papers, and "Common Sense", were published under pseudonyms. Much of the problems with "fake news", from whatever direction, come from concealed sources. Spam, in all media, comes from anonymous sources. Of course, if you publish under your own name, you may face harassment and reprisals.

Those are questions worth thinking about.
> What happens when your preload of a byte that happens to be in a subsequent page trips a page fault?

spectre
Aside from the telemetry BS, what is wrong with windows 10? There is nothing wrong with windows and it's extraordinarily convenient. Mail and Calendar integrated into the OS has never been better. Sure it's not as good as Apple's stuff, but it's more than worthwhile.

Linux you have to mess around CONSTANTLY or learn more about how things work in order to get them to your liking. Linux IS a "geeky alternative to mainstream." Linux is exactly as your example is about manual vs automatic. Stop and think for a sec why over 90% of cars are automatic and not manual. It's easier! We can argue all day how Linux is superior to windows but at the end of the day, what OS are you wasting more time on trying to get something to work as opposed to that being just abstracted from you in the first place since you don't need to know about it 99/100?
Thanks vaccinator!
The idea that Facebook and Twitter have to censor content sometimes, but then need to be some protector of free speech in others, and apply this across the board in some magically apolitical way is ridiculous. Censoring speech in inherently political

Surprise surprise, the political party who gets to censor more content in their favor supports it and the political party who gets more of their content censored takes the free speech angle. If you can't see that it's a political game you aren't looking very hard.
I take your meaning as, what we see on social media is not Free Speech, it is advertising subsidized Commercially Promoted Speech. That also means that preventing the promoted distribution is not limiting Free Speech (although as a private business they could do that with some liability as well).

Basically, the people complaining that their speech is being blocked were allowed to select the terms for debate based on their chosen meanings. Maybe the meaning of Free Speech as standing on a box in the town square needs to be taken back... but the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech so it seems like that boat has sailed (for commercial and political reasons).
Surprisingly undermentioned and underrated:

An ability for (which primarily derives from an actual interest in) actually solving -- as opposed to masking / deflecting / re-routing / siloizing -- so-called "communication issues" within and across teams.

Essentially a subset of "being a crap shield" as another commenter mentioned.
Edit: hum, I think that clear case does have magnets in the circular strip?

But the bezels don't look particularly narrow to me... Why would it be harder to make a case for the new iPhones that slightly wraps around the edges, compared to a 2017 Essential phone for instance?
Sounds very interesting. Can you provide a link?
Blanc: Rapid Video translation done by AI
WG is rather low-level. Projects and companies like Tailscale are tackling what you describe, and I'm confident we'll eventually have open standards as well.
> Considering the contract they landed earlier this year many of us would be really happy to fail so successfully financially.

This is worded as if it's a retort to the previous comment, but... how is it supposed to be?

The claim is that Mozilla's marketing program is overbudgeted and useless, not that Mozilla is "financially [un]successful". Even if you subscribe to the philosophy that multi-million royalties -> success, there's no contradiction. The only way that would be a contradiction is if the marketing team is the one that "landed" that deal. (And that deal isn't even new. Mozilla and Google have had similar deals forever.)
>Another notable example is the formalization of function-in-block semantics, which broke compatibility with various implementations in order to find a least-bad compromise everyone could interop on. I'm not sure if JS 1.1 even had blocks though, much less functions in blocks...

can you explain what you mean? Did early js implementations not have functions inheriting the block scope?
I'm testing for same job bashblog -> https://github.com/cfenollosa/bashblog
Huh, that's fair—I suppose if it was possible to wear earpieces that made others's accents match our own, perhaps we would! Writing actually makes it possible.
This Biden story was unlikely to cost him the election. But censoring it is going to be prime fuel for the right leading into the election and is a much bigger story than what was censored. This was a stupendously naive move.
Just that - Win 10 Pro keys are dirt cheap from many online key sellers - and just work.
I suspect that and OEM sales are how 99% of windows licenses are now sold - unless you know of people who buy them in a box from a store.
Was a little bit 'worrisome' before that MS might clamp down - but the last decade of 'free updates' and 'Win 10 will just evolve' indicates their thinking. Windows is near-as-damnit a free platform (which MS can then use as upsell from)
I've noticed that the highly paid consultants at work are usually recommended to our manager from upper management and they get their recommendation from other C level managers. I advice you to start attending gatherings where you are likely to meet C level managers. Basically, high level pay is very influenced by who you know.

Where I used to work we had a consultant that did specific projects on behalf of the board of directors that had been their for years. She was recommended to or board by someone in another board. I don't know how much she was paid but I suspect it was in the hundreds per hour. Not only that, she had a lot of power. Anything she wanted she got right away from any department. All the managers wanted to be sure she was kept happy.
Your argument is simply wrong. Or rather, you take one interpretation of the situation and then denigrate in over-the-top terms all the other interpretations.

An orchestra produces a single unique performance. The productivity of the system of producing single, unique performance has no changed.

You're saying that this single unique performance can be reproduced - sure, that's true but now it's a different product. And certainly, that can increase the price of the final product. A programmer produces programs. Those programs are eventually reproduced on computers on a small or a large scale. A programmer producing a program used by few people still must be paid a salary similar to a programmer producing a program used across the globe - the cost of the program itself has to make up for this, if it doesn't, the programming isn't going to happen.

Moreover, the orchestra example is ... just an example. There are quite a lot of other fields requiring skilled workers, where the productivity has stayed fairly steady.
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history.

https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
I don't think it would work that well. Phone conversations are private and so there won't be much pressure to crack down on hateful or false conversations.

Social media is very public. I'd say it's closer to radio than telephone.
Ueah this should have been the way it went, for facebook at least, but of course they _want_ to be a media company... they think they can take down traditional media and have got themselves into all sorts of problems!
Please make a browser client with the same interface! :)
Within a single language there's already considerable stylistic variance. I used to work in CS education and marked assignments, and I would see variances in length of students' (correct) solutions, for relatively trivial problems, that spanned a range of several multiples; e.g. what someone would take 50 lines to solve, someone else might need over 300. Part of it is comments and whitespace, but unnecessary abstractions also contribute to making code more "bloaty" than it could be.
I disagree. I read it, and the article brings up the usual 'platforming' and fake-news arguments which are unconvincing. Benjamin Franklin himself published plenty of fake news, but the benefits have always and likely will always outweigh the risks.
Right - I can't believe people are doing this frivolously.
The first amendment right to free speech doesn't compel any company (whether publicly traded stock or privately owned) to give you a free publishing platform.
The platforms screwed up by never generalizing. If they wanted to be neutral parties, they needed to aggressively API-ify each part of the social media stack and effectively become the AWS for social applications. This would have meant delegating UI, algorithms, moderation, fact-checking, authority, etc to the market and simply providing the primitives for executing on those elements. As it stands, they live in a half-way point between general platforms and media companies, as they have retained control over key parts of the media-distribution pipeline.
Not sure how you take that away unless you want Congress to do literally nothing except showboat and pass continuing resolutions. Might as well shut the operation down and save the taxpayers some money but then we’re not a Republic anymore.
Artists in the soviet era had to employ all kinds of allegories and humor to communicate their experience without being reprimanded by KGB censors. I'll take free speech over assigning any group the power to arbitrate what is considered "disinformation".
That’s why you look at excess mortality to see what’s actually happening and see how covid is being undercounted. You can’t hide the bodies:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking...

You can look at past graphs here for a number of European countries to see how countries like Norway and Finland compare to e.g. the U.K. and Sweden. This helps dispel any myths about lockdowns themselves causing significant excess mortality: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
I don't know how, but epidemiologists are able to estimate it.
That depends how you measure costs.

As a human, working for a for-profit tech company for 8 hours coats approximately the same amount of energy / effort as volunteering for a non-profit tech company, but it costs the organization vastly different amounts of money.
Then there would be less engagement and less profit... what are you a communist?

I'm kidding, but ad supported commercial promotion (broadcast) of speech (for additional profit/engagement) is pretty far from what I think the framers of the constitution meant as Free Speech (of the individual)... but then the Supreme Court has decided that money is speech (and corporations are people) so it doesn't matter what I think.
Radio carriers are liable for their content so in this situation same difference.
Link to the HN thread when this story first broke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24789379

I don't think that this article really contributes much more to the conversation. I expect discussion here to be just a rehash of the above.
>Free speech is by far the most reliable way of identifying bad ideas as bad.

... but you just spent an entire paragraph arguing that it's impossible for any person to distinguish between good and bad in the marketplace of ideas, and that all attempts inevitably do more harm than good.

How then would it be possible to identify bad ideas given freedom of speech? Surely any attempt to do so would suffer the same bad consequences.
No matter who wins in November, both the FB and Twitter will face massive regulatory scrutiny and they won't come out the same from that process.

As a side note, I became aware of Glenn Greenwald after the Snowden affair and I have been following his writings ever since. He is one of the sharpest minds in journalism today and is also one of the most objective journalists I've come across. In the past 4 years journalism has become extremely polarized and it's next to impossible for many of them to remain objective. As soon as one declares their opinion on something, they're skewered by the side opposing the issue. Somehow, Glenn has managed to remain largely objective.
It matches C's semantics exactly, to the point where ARM chose a specific acquire/release to match the "sequential consistency for data-race-free programs" model without requiring any global barriers or unnecessarily strong guarantees, while still allowing reordering.

(I should note that I believe this is actually C++'s memory model that C is using as well, and perhaps some other languages have adopted it too.)
Those are volume licenses that are given to microsoft partners for mass deployment. At some point those keys can/will be revoked when they reach a certain number of activations.
I don't even think you could call censoring lies actually censorship. Not in the moral sense of how we are opposed to 'censorship'.
Not true. Telephone utilities are generally publicly traded but it would be a free speech issue if they were to censor on their platforms.
Still.

The point remains that the products of DNA self-assemble, in the correct environment, into the pattern that determines the organism. Eliminate that environment, and it is just a stew of RNA and proteins.
I don't think that this article is very honest in the other lurking factor: Russian hackers.

The NYT reported that US intelligence officials picked up on conversations that there was to be an October surprise [0] that was designed to throw a monkey wrench in the US election.

It would be straight up dangerous to society if the false narrative created by a Russian disinfo was allowed to spread, and in that sense, the containment makes more sense. You might not have to agree with it completely, but you can't say that this is merely big tech partisanship. Glenn Greenwald doesn't even bother to mention this probability and simply paints it as big tech simply favoring one side, when there is clearly more to the issue.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
We flattened the curve... we bought time... most of us took active measures. It's helped. We have evidence it works.

Yet, people, who i assume are smart people, say that we're overreacting and we're causing societal harm and taking away their freedoms.

I can only laugh and cringe...

History shows that those cities that took active measures in every prior epidemic survived better and recovered better and thrived after.

This isn't our first pandemic, wont' be our last. Where we failed is we were woefully unprepared, our administration convinced people it's not that bad but here we are months later, deaths are still pushing upwards of 1,000 americans a day and people are saying its no worse than the flu.

There is no evidence to support this argument unless you're trying to deceive people.

You don't even need to know statistics. Take the worst flue year where we had 48k deaths that year. Covid is 5x worse that and we still haven't even made it through an entire year.

Take our best flue year - 1986-87 - where only 2,868 or so died. We'll be 100x times worse than that year with COVID alone and we're just NOW entering the common flu season.

The basic math doesn't support some of these studies that seem to use statistics for political gain rather than simple math for communicating the obvious differences.

And lets not forget - the death toll is only under control because we are taking active measures.
Spin is trying to show the blocking of the fake news article as something Biden was a part of. Obviously, Biden himself had no say or knowledge of the ridiculous article being blocked.

Also, this articles headline is inaccurate. Facebook and Twitter are private organizations and have a right to not allow certain things without it being censorship. Restaurants can keep out people known to defecate on the floors, Twitter and Facebook can stop By post garbage.

Censorship by nature is something a government does, not a private entity. Wikipedia doesn't censor articles, it just edits stuff.
Active Measures
Did you even read the article? It clearly notes that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. The article is about censorship, not about the First Amendment.
Faster Web App Delivery with PRPL
Guess what are two most frequent reason for site blocking and prosecution of dissidents in Russia? Articles 280 (Calls to extremism), 282 (actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, humiliation of human dignity).

So you say on VK (one of russian social networks), "Corrupt mayor from the ruling party is a crook and must be prosecuted"... well, you are inciting hatred to the ruling party. With luck you'll get 2 years of suspended sentence.
Learn Flutter complex animations with a real-world example
The amount of "intelligence" you could fit in 1KLoC is probably not much more than a really bad Markov model...
Actually, that makes sense.
I don't think MS will ever (as much as they'd like to) make us use their store - but "steam-stream" is at a massive disadvantage if they need to submit to whatever MS asks for in license (and presume nVidia, google and anybody who isn't Sony - so Steam would end up with something pretty valuable)
Social media is very public.

This is part of the "mistake" of the social media companies. Rather than emphasizing cohesive friend groups, they (particularly Facebook) defaulted everything to be as widely visible as possible.
Should radio be state-controlled?

For me, democracy has 4 pillars that must be independent, and currently are not is most countries: executive, legislative, judicial and media. The 4th one is controversial but nonetheless necessary for the country to be a democracy.

Democracy without equal speech time for all parties isn’t a democracy – it is like Singapore, a single-party democracy.

Finally, we must have a population who is educated enough to read ambiant news and distinguish false from truth. If you say that is impossible, you advocate for the people’s decision being taken by a central organization, aka not people’s decision. Educating people enough is entirely possible; For example people are routinely exposed to scam and a rule of life is never to fall down into scam. Only a few % of pop fall for it and it is fine. Democracy is based on the same people. You precisely shouldn’t prevent people from being exposed to fake news, otherwise they become ultra gullible (which may be what you want, in the end...).

All in all, what leftists call fake news or debunked news are often... falsely debunked, by journalists who try to present alternative facts, which the people are getting tired of. It’s ok, we understand they don’t want to lose grip of the leadership.
Thank you for this post and all the others. Where can I find the evidence you mention?
"I’m on mobile so didn’t re read that study but when I read the myocarditis study a month ago it turned out that the base rate of myocarditis was really no different than the COVID-19 rate and thus the whole scare was more or leas unfounded."

Generally agreed. There have been a few papers on this, and most of them were...flawed. To say the least.

This paper is the latest to suggest lurking heart problems in young healthy people, and while the sample is quite small and the observed metrics are questionable, I haven't seen anyone seriously attack the methodology. But in general, I'm skeptical of the claim as well, and I wouldn't suggest that this paper is definitive evidence of anything.

"Unfortunately reading these studies requires a very critical lens. You showed that in your above comments but, for example, the person alleging these unproven and speculative long term impacts appears not to take that critical approach."

100% agreed. It's been a general problem with all of these Covid-related pre-prints. Terrible, flawed studies get picked up by the media and credulously reported. By the time the flaws are found by serious researchers, the media is on to the next headline, never taking time to correct the record.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for $4/hr jobs. The parent asked what jobs don't exist because there generally aren't $4/hr jobs for valid reasons.

[And yes, low income jobs may make sense for kids doing babysitting, etc.]

By and large you need a pretty large disparity between middle income jobs and unskilled but reliable labor for a lot of the jobs to exist except for truly wealthy individuals.
B-12 is most readily available in meat, but is bio-available to reduced/smaller levels from non-meat sources (e.g. some fungi and algae).
The article doesn't claim that what Facebook and Twitter did was illegal. You're conflating whether they had the legal right to censor, with if they should have used it.
In the worst flu seasons we have 50k people die. In the easiest flu seasons we have 3k people die.

So if you take the worst flu season - which we count as a year - we're almost 5x that with covid and its not even a full year yet...

If you take the best flu year, we're pushing 100x that.

Where are we over estimating anything when we break it down into simple terms?

Which btw, these current death rates are with active measures in place. If we didn't have these measures then the trends set early on would be off the charts by now.
Trump backed out of the climate accords, severely harming climate change remediation.
> "I also strongly object to the notion that liberals somehow own this, when clearly both sides of the spectrum instrumentalize speech and its suppression when it suits them."

Both sides might do it but it's against the tenets of Enlightment liberalism to do so, so of course those claiming to be liberals justifiably get called out for it. If a person eats meat, they don't get to call themselves a vegan; if a person is okay with suppression of speech when it benefits them, they don't get to call themselves liberals.
I doubt it. Another major disadvantage of VLIW is instruction density. If compiler cannot fill all instruction slots, you are losing the density (thus wasting cache, bandwidth, etc).
Chaos Ink