skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just to clear the air, I am not a fan of the Post or the particular content that earned it its recent block. I agree that it's Twitter's platform, and they should be able to curate it as they see fit.

Here's how I see it: if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it. They are responsible for the user-generated content that they chose to publish. If instead I used my phone to start a phone tree to rouse people to ethnic violence, only the phone call makers would be responsible. The phone company just lets me place calls to whoever will receive them and transmits my messages.

Where does Facebook fall? Currently, if they allow people to start groups and publish materials calling for ethnic genocide and it leads to violence, they bear no responsibility. Sure, there's a continuum between phone and newspaper, but currently they are having their cake and eating it too. What should the law look like?

Free speech doesn't mean you are not responsible for the things you say (or re-transmit). If they want to be a non-neutral media outlet, Facebook, Twitter, et al. should be liable for the damages caused when their platform is involved in incitement of violence. If you're attacked by White supremacist counter-protestors, and it turns out they organized or promoted their activities on the platform, it should be partially responsible and should be a co-defendant in court.

Personally, I would prefer them to remain neutral platforms and focus their efforts on providing stronger abuse prevention that makes it harder for extremists to "amplify" their message into the feeds of people that don't want it instead of trying to whack-a-mole offensive content. Tools that would allow users to filter and block more easily, or even better selectively subscribe to the content they do want. I guess that would probably mean reduced engagement, though.
Any plans for articles covering the "device identity" and "device inventory database" components of BeyondCorp?

Slapping an proxy server to handle SSO/SAML in front of your web sites is the easy part.

I'm curious to hear how you're handling the devices -- especially if you're employees are remote.
Put simply, a large population of public support continually creates a small stream of people willing to turn ideas into violent action. You can’t get in front of the first time violent offenders before they do things, and there doesn’t seem to be much you can do to disincentivize them so you have to go after the publicly expressed ideas.
Harvard makes an effort to create a diverse class of students. That includes race but it also includes geography. Is Harvard excluding kids from New Jersey and New York because it goes out of it's way to admit kids from Nebraska and Montana?
Yeah, there's a reason that I reach for Python for web scraping.

String manipulation and collections on Python are not an after thought, the syntax and API make them convenient and easy to use.
SSH through a Teleport/Boundary-style bastion can be viewed as BeyondCorp for developers.
First to market advantage, more or less.

Also, it's even not so much PayPal as Visa and MasterCard, and how they got the way they are involves both politics and backroom dealings.
Homotopy Type Theory (2012) [pdf]
> Googlers have probably forgotten the olden times, when they didn't have Gigabit connections to their pockets and lounge rooms.

Sure, that's why projects like Project Loon were launched by Googlers.

I don't think the CC video thing is even ads related. Just that most videos are not CC and no one thought about creating an exception for CC videos.
+1 to this, lying is never the right move, especially to a company you want to join.
love this line, your city is very beautiful also

you can export just the city as a PNG under map / export.

I suggest turning the grid off before doing it
Database with UI and CRUD apps are generally OK, because there is still loads of people who cannot do that and they something like that.

What I don't like are "personal productivity applications", because those seem like they are created by people without imagination. Making another TODO app with email remainders, quantified self, CRM's to manage connections with friends and family.

Those kind of apps that are created by "self improvement nerds" for people like them. Problem is those apps never solve any real world issues. Because people who are self improvement nerds would rather build their own system and people who don't care about it won't use it.

For me those apps are in category of self improvement books. Where for most of the people investment in self improvement system quickly goes above return on that investment. Just when you start tweaking your .vimrc and at the end of the day instead of doing work you just played with your settings.

Using such tools and tweaking those will quickly end up in using tool instead of actually living ones life. When you know your uncle Ted does not like you, using system that reminds you about his birthday is not going to change that. You are not going to become millionaire by using some system that "millionaires use". Using Elon Musk time management is not going to make you successful owner of multiple companies if you are working 9-5 drone job.
It's a racket claiming to act on behalf of the music industry.

It's the RIAA: Racketeer Industry Association of America.
The first question in any political movement is always the same: Who, whom?

I.e. who's wielding power and over whom are they wielding it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who,_whom%3F
> screaming they are about to kill

Was there another story?
US Cops Turn to Canadian Phone-Tracking Firm After 'Stingrays' Become 'Obsolete'
Narcos Are Waging a New Drug War over a Texas Company’s Basic Chemical
Open Source needs open source infrastructure, so in retrospect GitHub was never really the best place for hosting open source projects.

https://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html
> It is certainly rational to arrest
> someone for screaming they are
> about to kill

With you so far. But the guy in the story did not do that...
Lack of mental institutions are to blame not free speech on Twitter and FB. How about not making policys to combat covid-5g and the flat earth club.
I must have a different translation from yours.
Not disagreeing, but your comment leaves me with a lot of questions...

What would be the difference in this argument between 'social media' and other media? For example, should the same be true of newspapers? What about scientific or government publications?

If people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is true, should private for-profit companies also be allowed to decide what is true for themselves?

Do you consider stories that are verifiably false to be "unfiltered information"? Why should it be considered "information" if it's not true? Does it matter if the information being presented was known to be false and is being published for subversive politically motivated reasons?

Is your framing that they're saying people are dumb really true if the "information" is difficult or impossible to verify? Does it matter if it's a breaking story and there's only one such source of information? Does it matter if, statistically, there's a sizeable portion of smart people that will accept published stories as true?
URL for your article?
Murder rate in London, including terrorism: 1.6 per 100,000.

Murder rate in San Francisco: 5.17 per 100,000.
When discussing this topic with friends, many used the socio-economic argument against it.

And this is valid up to a point.

If you think about it, all technologies are first available to a minority and then to a much larger population, and eventually to almost everyone.

I think most dystopia are simplistic and wrong on this topic.
You can be intolerant as an individual according to your own ethics and morals but the state should not be.
It is all a matter of degree.

Consider what people want to repair. It is doubtful that many people would want to do chip level repairs due to the expense. People may want to replace things like keyboards and screens, which are easier to work with since they are independent modules. If people started using their devices for longer periods of times, the battery would likely be a candidate.

Similarly with design. People may desire thin and light, but what is the point where no one will care or notice (short of bragging rights based upon advertising literature rather than utility)?

It is also worth noting that thin and light does not imply that easy repairs are impossible. Companies may try to convince people that the interiors of our devices are bursting at the seams with sophisticated electronics, but the reality is that the screen often dictates the size while the internal PCB uses a fraction of that space. (I have seen thin phones that are screwed together, have user accessible batteries and microSD slots, and even had a snap on panel to hide all of that. Laptops aren't all that different in this respect.)

Sure, they may be able to trim half a millimetre here and there by throwing repairability out the window. On the other hand, it is a high price and less of a trade-off than many will suggest.
I think it is, too, but "is this sufficiently obfuscatory to fall under the DMCA or not" is really only something a court can decide- it's not a technical question. So "this is obviously not DRM" is an argument, but until a court says otherwise the RIAA seems to have a leg to stand on.
Because the people who "like" calls to genocide and murder, and stockpile weapons... are the kind of people that you don't want running around in society?

It's not like they are arrest everyone who liked this photo. Just this one particular person who showed a pattern of behavior that advocates murder.
Ask HN: Paul Graham Parallel Corpus
TLDR: Are you willing to rewrite a pg essay in your own style?
Goal is parallel style corpus for authorship obfuscation tools.

PG on Twitter today: "writers are leaving a damning trail that they don't realize they're leaving. This text is going to be around forever for software to analyze." [1]

People must be free to speak anonymously, without retaliation from monopolist employers.

Authorship obfuscation is currently weak. Research could be improved by building parallel corpus with single target style, many source styles. Diversity of source styles likely important.

This is not much work for a big crowd.

[1] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1320703313818619905
> Letting such people out themselves seems to be more beneficial then letting them lurk in polite society.

Removing them from society is the best course of action, which is what France seems to try to do right now.
You have no intrinsic right to a mobile telephone, so we do live in this world.

If it made business sense for them to do this, they would.

Call in a few threats to local businesses or SWAT someone and see how long it takes for your phone to get disabled.
> I believe it is illegal in california to consider race for public universities, so you could look at Caltech and Berkeley which fit most definitions of elite schools. Caltech is 48% Asian, while MIT is 25.7% for undergrad.

These are interesting stats but they don't actually mean anything unless you can prove that the applicant pools for Caltech and Berkeley are similar to that of MIT. It's entirely possible, that Caltech and Berkeley have a higher proportion of Asian applications. It's also possible that underrepresented minorities that could be admitted to Caltech or Berkeley pick Harvard or Princeton because they're more well-regarded and more diverse. I wouldn't be surprised. Elite schools compete for the same kids.
A Brief History of Scala (2006)
As an atheist, I never really understood how a religious person can not be a fundamentalist. Isn't that just reading the book and doing exactly as it says, which is required by the God? I don't get how people disregard sections of the books and still consider themselves members. How much of the book can be ignored before you are no longer following the religion in peoples eyes?
The structure of the body more or less remains the same. Ship of Theseus hits the same limits evolution does. We don't really become a completely different species from local changes.

What is the point of information if you can't embody it? I guess the desirability of immortality in a computer system completely relies on how faithfully the system can pretend on your behalf, that you have a body. An endless heaven without having a body to structure your sensations and grant you movement through space and time... seems lacking.
Browser extensions are very similar, just as an extension instead of direct. Unfortunately, it's difficult to use non-store extensions in Chrome, and Google pretty much blocks anything that allows youtube downloads from the store. youtube-dl is likely the most popular option for this, and even then, the same (deeply flawed) logic could be used against any of them.
The other weapons are probably a scissor and some forks.
Based on the "Betamax" supreme court ruling on case "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc." in the United States, it is. This is the same ruling that protects many DVR's such as Tivo, and many more which are used all over the U.S. and in many parts of the world.

I guess nobody told them that DVRs like Tivo aren't sold in the US anymore or that Betamax hasn't been governing law for over 2 decades. Betamax was fair use because it was the only option for viewing a lot of broadcast content due to the limited broadcast windows and rarity of TV shows sold on cassette tape at the time.

But every form of media content today is available on-demand, so the time-shifting logic doesn't apply. And a lot of the content is also made available (for a price) for connectivity-shifted access, so the "download for the plane ride" argument doesn't work either.

I would wish them luck, but quite honestly they're just going to waste courtroom space that could go to a case that actually needs it.
Get Presidential Election Widget for iOS 14 (Latest Polls,Early Voting and More)
Life shouldn't be lived as if you're talking to a police officer all the time.
Innoreader -- the full web app and the Android app are both great
Pretty much every civil rights victory that has been achieved had been done through appeal to universal principles.

People in America really don’t understand what the alternative is like. Academic theater seems workable, or at least harmless at best so long as we’re standing on solid bedrock. But that’s a framework that exists so long as you maintain it. What society really looks like absent this framework is what happened in Iraq after in 2005. The first time people voted, they did so strictly along ethnic lines and then tried to annihilate each other. Or in my home country where we went to war to separate ourselves from people who had the same skin color and same religion, but spoke a different language.

The United States is the most successful multi-ethnic democracy in the world. For example, while Muslim immigrants to the US achieved economic parity within a generation or two, in countries like France they’re facing multi-generational poverty. We are not perfect. While we have successfully integrated (socially and economically) wave after wave of immigrants. We are doing it again right now—income mobility among Hispanic people is similar to white such that within a few generations incomes for these groups converge. Our persistent failure has been our inability to fix the legacy of our shameful history of slavery, segregation, and Indian removal. But nobody else has figured out how to do that either. In countries like the UK, the Black-white income gap is just as large as in the US. The gap in maternal mortality rates is even larger. And in most of the rest of Europe, it’s not even legal to keep statistics about these disparities.

Maybe some professors have figured out a better replacement for our universal values that will work better—one that replaced a broad, shared commitment to equality with individual white people admitting complicity in perpetuating systemic racism. But they probably didn’t.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that it is illegal or that it should be -- clearly that it shouldn't! I'm simply saying that the program was designed to download content that the site and/or creators didn't want to be downloaded and that the vast, vast, vast majority of people using said program were using it to circumvent those restrictions.

Again, if anyone is guilty of anything, it's the users (like me) who use the program, not the program for merely existing. And frankly, since I don't distribute the content I download or profit from it in any way, I welcome the RIAA coming after me, just as I did 20 years ago when I was a high school student using Napster on her dial-up connection.
The best precaution is being under the age of 70 years old.
> this is a strawman argument.

I'm reading this as a header declaration.

You are arguing a range of items without actually touching on my point - that health data patterns require a link from encounter and observations back to a patient record. I think that you are arguing a number of these points with incomplete information (i.e. that you have little understanding of the pressures which result in the continued existence of Windows XP within the health ecosystem), and on other points you are completely missing the point (storing patient data on the cloud is a whole different argument).

> Data is money today , so industry is not interested in better safety of medical data either, preventing aggregate collection will loose a lot of value for med tech companies.

The data has relatively minimal value for the makers of patient record systems. The value of these systems are in the licensing and ancillary/secondary services.
They have most certainly been killed in the US because they violate the murderers’ view of religious rules. It may not be technically correct to say they’ve been killed (strictly) for blasphemy, but that’s nitpicking in my view.
HDCP protections added to Chrome in 3...2...

edit: I only meant this in so much that it's entirely possible for Google, that controls both Chrome (the biggest browser) and YouTube (biggest online video site) to encable DHCP restrictions on video capture from within the browser for sites (such as YouTube) that might implement it. Given their proclivity towards giving the RIAA/MPAA whatever they ask for, it wouldn't surprise me.
A few years ago the “like” button was more of a bookmark; now it has evolved into a signal of approval. Twitter changed the icon from a checkmark to a heart on Tweedeck, for example. I’m pretty sure that there are users who still think of it as a bookmark (but I don’t know anything about the guy in the article).
Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Estonia all rank higher in economic freedom than the US and have more direct democracies. The US literally wrote Japan's constitution. France stands out as having the most powerful executive branch of any of these countries.
What does Google do in this regard? I don't work there, so I'm curious to hear about their solution for endpoint security.

From what I've heard, they don't allow sensitive data on laptops in the first place—you mostly SSH into your desktop or a cloud machine. That's probably not enough to solve the issues you described, so I wonder what else they do.
To that point, a small number of companies entirely dominate all social media at this point:

Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Tiktok.

Collectively they form an extreme oligopoly position, something quite comparable to the telecom oligopoly. They should be held to a different standard accordingly, if they want to retain such power in our society. If only a few of them simultaneously collude to censor, it has what can only be considered something akin to direct government censorship in the impact it has: you are without voice while everyone else is holding a bullhorn.

In this day and age, being denied access to social media is probably even more socially & culturally punishing than having your phone number turned off. It's more akin to not allowing people to leave their homes and enter public spaces, not allowing them to ever protest, not allowing them to ever voice their opinions in a public square.
You can examine and dump the byte code from the runtime with phpdbg — it basically acts as a compiler to byte code on startup.

Of course because it’s also very dynamic, the lines are blurred, imo
Write Your React App with Fast Refresh in Deno
I don't think it's as big a problem, first because everyone will have bad experiences at some point and that's a growth opportunity in and of itself. Secondly because good candidates are apprehensive about bad companies regardless of their experience level.

And frankly the market is competitive enough that you can always quit a bad job to find a better one, if you're qualified.
I'm reading this thread though feeder as I type. Big fan
Humanity for centuries has decided that information is potentially dangerous. Those in power get to choose what information that is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_gove...

Modern day version:

RIAA thinks ideas/instructions about how to record music will destroy the record industry.

Twitter thinks that some ideas from the NYPost will harm democracy.

The NYTs thinks that revealing anonymous sources will harm democracy (because their inside sources would be fired).

etc. etc.

Freedom of speech in the broadest sense is not the equilibrium state of cultural norms.
The problem I see a lot is, "the algorithm contributes X" implies that "getting rid of the algorithm will fix X". This is not true.

For an analogy imagine a town that with an arsonist setting lots of homes on fire. It is obviously true that "storing gas in your hose contributes to houses burning down", but "getting rid of gasoline in house will not fix the fires".

For clarity I consider "the algorithm" the sophisticated ordering of your follower's posts, and the recommendation of new followers. This means getting rid of "the algorithm" mostly means going back to the 00's when post where sorted by date, likes, or simple formula that combined the two. Content still went viral, and people still sorted themselves into information silos. This meant people spend more time searching for content, but I don't see any real fundamental difference that is going to result in less polarization.

The underlying problem is people communicating with other people. I argue if we got rid of the internet it would not get rid of this polarization and spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. In fact you saw many similar problems prior to the Civl War, when the fastest method of communication was a telegram. People still distributed pamphlets, formed clubs with like minded individuals, gossiped, and spread rumors and falsehoods.

I think people grab on to idea "the algorithm is causes polarization", because it puts single thing, presents a specific solution (change/get rid of the algorithm), and has an specific, abstract group of people to blame the owners and employees of the big tech companies. People don't like it what the problems affecting their lives are caused by dozens of interacting forces and there is no clear simple solution, but rather a lot of work in a lot of areas.

As an aside drop in disappearing manufacturing jobs and illegal immigrants. See what you get.
> The trouble is deciding who gets to wield that force

Whoever is wielding the force is the one gets to wield it. We can have a more civilized society by strictly limiting the wield the force by limiting opportunity to weild it by clear defined individual rights.
Why would you think there is an "other side" to see?

I'd take boredom over non-existence.
His thoughtcrimes are beyond doubt!
Load NPM packages without installation and build tools