skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's really not a priority above money, though. Money isn't some magical evil thing. Money is the unit of account that we use to measure goods and services.

Money is not magical but they may conceal the truth as the rabbit in a hat. Money is numbers and with numbers you can do math, its easy to grasp. But money doesn't in itself explain the factors around. A product or service may have a certain cost because of the quality or because it's subsidized or because its valued different or because of another unaccounted factor.
And what if its something that is invaluable? No money in the world can be fixed to it.
The risk of letting money be the priority is that we may see the number but not the damage to the nature behind it.
As climate change probably will take lives or even humanity in the future and life has one of the highest value, or at least the life of oneself, therefore it is a priority above money.

> Something "costing money" means that it reduces the amount of goods and services we can create. Climate change "costs money" in the sense that it reduces global output. Reducing global output has a human cost, especially for low income nations.

And if it's so then what says the cost needs to be distributed evenly?
Around 5% of the world population hold 70% of the world wealth(at least 2012).

> To you and I perhaps it is 'just money' because your standard of living is sufficiently high that a 10%, 20% or even 50% reduction is a sacrifice of comfort, and not existential. But contracting the growth prospects for India by 25% over the next decade means consigning millions of people to crippling poverty.
> This idea that money is some morally lesser concern just fundamentally misunderstands what money is. Aggregate wealth is just all the stuff we have. Less money means less stuff. Less stuff means more poverty. That may be worth while, if we think climate change is severe. But it's always extremely important to keep this in perspective.
> Climate change is primarily going to hurt the world's poor, and so are the cuts we'll have to make to combat it. But if you don't keep that in perspective, the cure may end up worse than the disease.

If we would divide the aggregated wealth equally between all people then the standard of living would probably be pretty decent and economical growth wouldn't be necessary.
Thou I find it hard to imagine that ever happening.
The difficulty for people to work without incentives.
The difficulty for people to realise it's just not their hard work but mostly luck that brought their wealth.

Climate change hopefully will change peoples views and values.
If we won't find a cure we may at least embrace the disease.
Funny, looking at that screenshot filled me with nostalgia for a program I've never used.
Seems unlikely to work - the notices weren't under 512 so 512(f) doesn't apply. My guess is all claims other than declaratory judgement get dismissed, but they win on declaratory judgement assuming it doesn't settle.
This is a tough thing to form an opinion on. Clearly Islam, if followed to the letter, is incompatible with the modern world, and this need to be made clear to anyone who wants to live in a modern country in the modern world. Hell, nor is Christianity, if taken literally. But it has adapted slowly, and Christians no longer kill non-Christians on the streets for blashpemy. On the other hand, I support freedom of speech, and liking something is speech. To me, I think, that matters more. So I choose to be unhappy at this news. IMHO, he had every right to like it. Just like Nazis had every right to march through Skokie [1]. I find it despicable, but that is precisely what freedom of speech protects: things I find despicable and would rather not see.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

edit: downvoted to hell, predictably. Everyone loves freedoms, unless they are of something they dislike
At what point is it cheaper to ship facebook users methamphetamine directly
Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. This is a common, but false, idea. Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Verge has a good article that discusses this in more detail: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-comm...
The Post was the newspaper with the good sports page and sport betting odds when I was growing up.

The paper version pretty much is just that today. Online, it’s a different spin looking for a similar audience. Instead of cranky Jets fans, it’s targeting blue collar conservatives. The quality is much lower imo — they run native content that looks like Taboola.
Successive approximation does not imply optimal successive approximation. A random walk that gets there qualifies: a succession of steps. A linear search is generally more efficient than a random walk, but depends on an accurate assessment of the direction and magnitude of each step. A binary search also depends on a global ordering criterion. All that would too much to ask of many users of Go.
That could make a lot of Californians or Texans uncomfortable knowing how many nonbelievers there really are in their state where they believe everyone is like them.
Where are you planning to go from there?
Personally I never want to touch Scala again. Implicit and operator overloading hell. Let alone the shit show that is sbt and c++ compile times from scalac.
I use youtube-dl to archive my recordings of my own performances which have been put online by third parties (and which no one but me has any rights to!).

I use youtube-dl to view videos on other sites (such as vimeo) that don't display in my browser (due to compatibility or privacy settings), usually product support stuff.

I use youtube-dl to collect evidence about cryptocurency scammers, which often gets removed from youtube by the time the scam starts collecting. By collecting it when its online it makes it possible to hand over to lawyers so they know what to go subponea. At least once a video I saved probably personally saved me from a frivolous lawsuit (attorney fired his lying client after sending me a threat letter which I responded to with an archived video).

I sometimes use youtube-dl to buffer longer pieces which I'm watching which might suffer from infuriating connection interruptions.

I don't use youtube-dl to save copyrighted music (except incidentally), among other reasons: the audio on youtube is often pretty low quality.
There's a 32 light year volume that encompass my whole history. The universe seems to preserve every point of my life to a resolution. If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity turns out correct (or something like it), my life is preserved in perfect resolution across an increasingly large volume of space.

Separately:
There's no point in my life where I'm ever the same person. I've continually evolved.

With human history, the resolution of records continues to expand. Fossils, artifacts, writing, photos, and Google search logs all contain personal information. The resolution of historical information shows a clear trend.

Am I immortal if only a moment of my life is preserved, or am I immortal if all points of my life can be accurately be resimulated?

I would argue there is no difference. In order to resimulate me at any point in time, my context, my surroundings, must be considered. My context exists for historic reasons. In order for my brain to be interpretable its application in real world interactions must be considered the the world can only be understood by knowing its history.

To know me you need to know my life and surroundings at all points in time. Technology is slowing increasing the resolution of human immortality, although the universe seems to have already accomplished this perfectly.
Asking Microsoft to resign from the RIAA over YouTube-dl takedown demand
A genuine question on this topic, does that mean we should have SSH ports open to the world too? If we have some form of 2FA? Or I’m misreading the point of beyond Corp.
“A young man who "liked" a gruesome Twitter picture showing French teacher Samuel Paty after he was murdered has been charged with glorifying terrorism...
...
But in France, which has a long tradition of satirising religion, they are seen as symbolic of free speech.”

Free speech, or no free speech?
I can just google "london police harassment" and see plenty of evidence the UK has issues with policing.
Ask HN: How to deal with an abusive co-worker?
I'm at my wit's end and am not sure what is the best way to proceed. I have been working at my current job for about 7 months. I am the front end developer for a chain of retail outlets in Denver. I work on our website, our customer facing kiosks, and our POS systems. There are only two other developers and one of them has become a nightmare and is making it impossible to work there. I have been verbally abused, belittled, blamed for things that weren't my fault, had my accomplishments diminished and taken credit for.

The guy is well known for this kind of behavior. I'm not the only person that has had a problem with him but it's just excused as "the way he is." After yet another round of it I sent screenshots of our conversation to our boss and was told "that's just how we communicate around here. He told me to go fuck myself just last week." I'm afraid of losing my job if I report him. We just moved here and are still not quite on our financial feet after some personal disasters last year. How should i proceed? Just suck it up until i find a new job?
> You can publish tax returns without exposing your sources

There's no reason to think this. It's increasingly common for security-conscious organizations to watermark documents to identify who accessed it. See, for instance, how the Intercept "accidentally" burnt a source by publishing her raw documents about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

That said, the New York Times has some level of credibility, and the Post doesn't. You can't simply demand that the Post be treated with a level of respect just because you agree with its slant. Perhaps if the Post published the email metadata which would instantly prove authenticity I'd feel a bit worse for it. Until then, though, I'll continue to assume it's just trying to launder a smear campaign, whether that smear campaign originated from foreign intelligence services or domestic slimeball political operatives.
Wow, by that logic news reporters aren't even allowed watch videos on the site for news reporting purposes because it would violate the ban on commercial use.
Well maybe. But it seems to me that the proponents of the phrase culture war are like the people who flunked phys101 and the started a YouTube channel to explain how their perpetual motion engine works.. they made up a new phrase because they don't want to accept any of the prior thought and discussion in the area that doesn't lead to their conclusions
No, they don't. The browser accesses the content directly from the website, and currently stores it in a cache folder on the user's computer. (The caching step isn't necessary but eliminates the need to re-download portions of the content.)

Youtube-dl accesses the content from the cache directory after the browser has cached the content.
As a major believer in respecting pronoun usage it's ridiculous this is a crime.
Section 230 does not require a platform to be neutral. It never has.
Here is another bad argument missing from appendix:

Organisms are evolved to utilise short life-spans to quickly adapt changing environmental conditions.

Let’s assume humanity finds a cure to death and also without dwelling into dystopia that this finding is cheaply available to everyone. What will most likely happen is that bad ideas will haunt the humanity forever as older generations won’t die and remove their bad ideas with them. There might come a point that humanity will completely collapse due to rule by elders where they can be expected to accumulate much of the available wealth. So bad ideas of older generations can lead to total collapse of species.

Honestly I don’t see anything other than dystopia occurring with the cure to death, regardless if it is expensive or cheap.

I’m also impressed people want to live forever, this is something I cannot possibly understand, don’t people at least want to see what is at the other side? Do they think they will never get bored from material existence?
What do you think about Zettlr? But I think it is an electron app...
.NET for Apache Spark 1.0 Release
They said what I said, but perhaps more diplomatically.
"He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons.

Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier.

The man denied being radicalised, Chevallier added."
They appear to have been named after the modern villages currently on or near their locations
If the laptop was abandoned as claimed, it wasn't even hacked. Twitter does not have a leg to stand on. They were just reacting without evidence to try to help Biden.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-hacked-mater...

"Twitter said the article was in violation of its hacked material policy. The company clarified that it was banning links to the article because it contained images of hacked material with personal and private information."
What natural UIs should be like(mic to MIDI interface)
> even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more

This is the GOP party platform for 2016 & 2020:

> Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.

https://gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/#Item2

> Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary

> Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/#Item4
Fault injection is a technique. Chaos engineering is a discipline.
Remember this research was done across the globe including countries like Brazil and Japan.

But to focus on the U.S. most really competitive institutions in the U.S. like medical institutions are not running into the problem of having too many white people. Medical institutions have too many Asians, and not enough Black and Hispanic people to have a representative graduating class.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/allopathic-distrib...
I should also add that i have spoken with the girl that had the position before me and this individual is 100% the reason she left as well. It got so bad that she was openly sobbing at her desk most days from his treatment of her.
The Apple TV Remote App
So this guy is both good at sales and a good programmer and he writes a blog talking about it. Hmmm doubtful...
"context is relative" made me smile, thinking "PAMF" is Palo Alto Medical Foundation, but why would anyone in general have the context to understand that
Historically at Google the exceptions fell into one of a few buckets:

* You used a modified client or client proxy (this was done for e.g. SSH)

* You used a remote-desktop protocol to remote into a machine with direct network access to the service

* The service got a wholesale exemption and was allowed through the firewall with ordinary IP ACLs

(descending order of impressiveness wrt the BeyondCorp philosophy and whitepaper)

Some of this is discussed in the "Non-HTTP Protocols" section of this paper: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/login_win...
Superheroes of Deep Learning Vol 1: Machine Learning Yearning
Oh man, where is that if you don’t mind me asking? That’s horrible
That was my main "funny thing" about that movie. It makes those algorithm choices more dramatic than they are just to trigger people more. If you are into those things movie about "how bad big corporations are" is then served algorithmically to you by Netflix which is one of those big bad corporations.
At some point I think we have to consider the view of Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The problem remains as who defines what is intolerant. But in this case I think the argument is sound. This like was clearly endorsement. And the act was inexcusable no matter how offended anyone can be in their religion.
If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures.

No, they don't willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts the content. Youtube simply does that for expediency.

The end result if youtube-dl wins on these technical access grounds is that Youtube will be forcedby the RIAA and other content licensors to stop caching content in accessible form. Youtube-dl will win the battle and lose the war.
https://archive.vn/ZX9od
What does "liking" on a social platform like Twitter even mean?

When you only have a limited range of reacting to to something (like, retweet, comment) a lot of complex reactions often get lumped together.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21516729/facebook-twitte...

"7. Twitter’s decision was, at least, more clearly explained. The site has rules against publishing hacked information, it’s used these rules to ban links before, and copying personal files from a laptop without permission — if that’s indeed how they were obtained — arguably falls under them. Twitter later elaborated on its decision, saying the Post story included “personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules.”
Is this a post from the 90s ?

Who is working in a team worth acquihiring and then plans on being on unemployment benefits or has trouble finding a new job ? And I can't remember the last time someone asked about referrals ...
In some ways the whole thing supports a classic argument for free speech: better people know this guy had that kind of opinion (the "like") and intervene, either though anti radicalization programs or at worst keeping an eye on him. If he keeps his views private or underground, we only learn about them when he does something really bad.
Imho, the issue with speech technology is that it is beeing developed by companies that wants to abuse your home (device,...).

There is just no way I will let google device that listens my conversations let at my home (let me be faster - no, my phone doesnt listen, and yes I am sure, its maker wouldnt recognize it any more).

Or amazon. Or facebook. Sure speech technology could be usefull but not from those companies.

On the other side, there is just no usable way found by anyone else, how to monetize the technology (i.e. except for spying on people).

I think that this is THE problem of speech recognition.
Yes, there is a certain irony that his criminal charges seem to be a violation of free speech.
>But in France, which has a long tradition of satirising religion, [Depictions of the Prophet Mohammed] are seen as symbolic of free speech.
what's the easiest way to have selenium execute JavaScript on the currently loaded page?
In France? Freedom of expression is somewhat less than in the US, and is biased towards secularism.

So yes, blasphemy is protected while expression involving violence or religion is more limited.
Well unsavory opinions are more of an unavoidable side effect of freedom of speech, not the intent. If the only benefit of freedom of speech was to offend other people it wouldn't be much of a foundation of civilization.

Sometimes it is important to make people uncomfortable in the name of progress. Sometimes people take advantage of that to be trolls. The two are inseparable and to a generic outside observer indistinguishable.

But the real reason for freedom of speech is purely to preserve individual liberty and remove any value judgement on the part of society. The only time it is ok to limit speech is when it poses a risk of real harm to others.
> He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons.

> Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier.

Spare me. This has nothing to do with the technicalities of free speech. A right incidentally that Islamists who cut peoples heads off don't accept.

It is certainly rational to arrest someone for screaming they are about to kill rather than waiting for them to go through with it.
An acquihire is also a solid opportunity to end your participation on the team. It's perfectly acceptable to stop working somewhere after only a month because the company got acquired. For similar reasons if the acquiring company presents you with a contract (I think there was an article about this, a noncompete?) they want you to sign as a condition of continued employment, it's very different than if they presented you with that contract as a condition of hiring you normally.
> if we do not learn the lesson, we perish

Would you consider Twitter refusing to propagate this nonsense "learning a lesson"? I would.
Here's the problem:

Those people have a right to be wrong. That's why your vote counts as much as theirs does. The space that that leaves is where leadership is supposed to come in, in order to tilt the balance one way or the other. If a good leader doesn't arise, that's probably the problem you should be trying to solve.

The elitism of "we know better than you" has been used to justify some pretty horrific chapters in human history. Whether you like it or not, it is a much better state of being for the uninformed to vote, than the alternative.