skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And saying that something is "the (very) definition of" something is a colloquialism drawing comparison that dates back at least to James Madison and the Federalist Papers.

No. 47, if you'd like to read it.
It is not surprising that this would happen in a democratic state. Democracy is not necessarily friendly to individual rights and freedoms. If the majority of citizens want to take your freedom away, you have no recourse in a democratic society. What we recognize as freedoms and human rights are more appropriately associated with limited government, separation of powers, and republics.

We often associate democracies with republics to the point of making them equivalent, but the two ideas are not related to each other. They both have very complicated and separated histories that happened to coincide in one very influential country (the U.S.A.).
It does. Using inline style attributes is basically a good idea when using a component framework, except for missing features and questionable performance. Tailwind solves that.

There is an influential presentation from, i think, someone on the react team that started the whole CSS-in-JS thing. It just advocated for using inline styles. I can‘t seem to find it.

React and Vue have special handling of the inline style attribute to make it more pleasant to use, so it‘s not been fully discouraged for a while.
I've noticed the discrepancies too. Even Bing and DuckDuckGo (vs Google) will return drastically different results, particularly that aren't in line with 'mainstream' thinking.

I know Google did not start out like this - 'don't be evil' - but this is how they ended up... Curating truth. It's really sad.

I don't believe in unlimited free speech, but the bar should be set as low as what is permitted by the 1A, at least in the United States which grants maximum freedom under the law.
> The only defense against it it following China's footsteps.

Is that the point you were trying to make?
The US runs propaganda on its citizens and the citizens of other countries as well. China's propaganda arm prays every night to be as competent as the US' one day since most people dont even recognize it as propaganda while even Chinese citizens can tell their propaganda from a mile away.
I am starting a new web project next week (first web project in years), thank you for your explanation. I like treating code as data and vice-versa so i figure REact will be better for me than Vue, despite my initial choice. For sure it will be better than vanilla+Jquery :P
> the problem isn't technical but rather social, organizational, and political

I would disagree with you here. The problem isn't social, or political. The problem is one of economics. It simply isn't in the interests of those manufacturing the voting machines to make them secure.

They go unpunished for flaws, and it isn't legal, most of the time, for anyone to try and peak beneath the covers and see if there are flaws present.

They have no incentive to make things secure, and can simply attack anyone who tries to look at their security, with a high degree of success.

In a simple cost/benefit analysis, it is cheaper to ignore security. They will continue to get the government contracts, regardless of whether or not they are deemed to be more or less secure than their competition. Why would they bother?
The meme that never dies.

There are 1 billion users, each of which spend x$ on the platform. The recommendation system does not need to get 100% accurate (it'd be very hard to get to something that 10% nonaccidental/nonfraud click through rate for example). It needs to be slightly accurate. The difference between 0.5% ctr and 0.6% CTR or conversion is probably 20% increase in revenue, and much more in profits (assuming fixed cost).
This comment exercising various mental gymnastics to find nefarious causes for a teenager's changing personality...

Every generation of parents thinks their kid is the smartest and then they become teenagers and suddenly they're moody and want to do things that their parents don't approve of. That's the basic fact underlying this. Any argument you make about kids changing when they become teenagers needs to have this realization at its core. Once you realize that, then you can start to make judgements about whether or not their behavior is cause for alarm or not.

Yes apps are addictive, because they're designed that way. But I can tell you what else is designed to be addictive: literally everything. Do you think Doritos taste the way they do by accident? They don't fall off the Dorito tree tasting like that. Or what about the chip companies that has the slogan "betcha can't eat just one" or "once you pop, the fun don't stop"? Likewise, why do TV shows and movies never line up with reality, even if they're based on a true story? Because they were designed to be more interesting than reality. Why do episodes always end on a cliff-hanger, or people leaving a theater say "man they really set that up for a sequel"? Because it was designed to be addictive. Why do most songs last about three minutes and have two verses and two repetitions of the chorus? Because the producer knows that's the most addictive way to write a song.

I mean literally everything: Why is bread and milk at the back of a grocery store? Because they know you're going to buy that anyway, and if it's at the back, you'll need to walk past a whole bunch of other things that are all designed to be addictive, with colorful marketing signs designed to maximize engagement. Why do automakers make cars with smooth gear changes and plush leather seats and feature-filled entertainment consoles and a jillion speakers? Because that keeps people happier in their car and more likely to buy another one of those cars in the future. Why do people love dogs? Because humans purposefully designed wolves into the perfect human companion, and everything about a dog was designed to increase user retention and engagement. Why does cola have caffeine added to it? Because caffeine is addictive. There is literally no other reason.

"It's designed to be addictive" isn't an excuse, because everything is designed to be addictive. So start with "my child is turning into a teenager and teenagers like different things than children" and then subtract "everything is designed to be addictive" from your reasons. How do you talk to your children when they want more Pringles or a(nother) dog or to stay up late watching TV, or when they're upset that their first car doesn't have Bluetooth audio? I'll bet this author wouldn't write an article shaming their kids for that.
He's not right. Windows comes with "telemetry" (read spyware) you cannot disable (unless you got a corporate version). Also UEFI has not exactly been without controversy.
> A free and open internet also allows propaganda and hate to flourish

I disagree. Sure there will always be some amount of misinformation on the internet, but a fully state-controlled media and internet (see - China) is far, far more effective at spreading propaganda and controlling the narrative.
he's being downvoted because he didn't get the obvious sarcasm.
Weird music "these days"? Unlike the companion radio stations which existed for decades? Or the classic pieces that a lot of the lo-fi incorporates? Or the restaurant background-piano?

> Books (esp. classics) are still just as intriguing and engrossing as they were when they came out.

What we're used to these days has definitely moved the goal posts, at least in the adventure themes. For example the classic Bram's Dracula is not really exciting these days. The described technology is not amazing either (oh, he played a wax cylinder record)

> Books don't have live concerts where the point is entirely other than the enjoyment of the content.

Have you ever been to an author meeting + book signing events? Relatively popular authors can fill whole theatres.

> Books benefit from all the technological advancements of today (...) without having to become vapid background scenery as a result.

Have you heard of background audiobooks?
Could you please explain your ”were better” argument?
So first I do my homework. Get my own financing. Know exactly what model I want. Then I look online for all the dealers selling this vehicle, note the place, contact info, leave room for the name of the rep I'll be speaking to, price, etc.

Then I call each one, telling them I saw the online inventory had the vehicle in stock but since I'm buying today I just want to check if that's still the case. That already reduces some of the options: many dealers will leave attractive but outdated inventory to generate leads, and then try to upsell.

I start from the cheapest option I see online and work my way through the list. As I encounter the higher priced versions, I voice a slight disappointement that another dealer X is selling the same model for $Y. That's when they can choose to match or stay firm. Either way I thank them for their time and tell them I will be calling back within a couple hours to let them know.

During this time, I often get callbacks with counter-offers. I note the value, thank them and let them know I'm finishing my list.

Once I have a winner, I go back and call all the others, starting with the most pricy, to let them know I've made my decision, and that I respect their time so didn't want to let them hang. Things get interesting at that stage, as more counter-offers appear. At that stage, you can also visit in person to thank the salesperson as you're on the way to the lowest offer: sometimes they end up with yet another counter offer.

Having your own financing means you're not stuck with their shell game. Only when you go to doing the paperwork, you can negotiate financing rates and see if they can beat what you got from your bank. But the sale price is already set at that stage so it's safe.

The whole point during this process, it's super important to remain humble and friendly. Even though you control the process, any smugness will kill your options. And to tie this back to the thread, that's a skill you can improve with negotiation training (and it benefits more than just car buying).
Here is a dynamic feed [0] as generated by rss-proxy [1]. Hope that does the job for you.

[0] https://rssproxy.migor.org/api/feed?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjoemor...

[1] https://gitlab.com/damoeb/rss-proxy
> Indie at its core. While it’s my personal opinion, many developers appreciate tools that are not backed by tech giants (for example React backed by Facebook, and Angular by Google), but rather grows from a community and that is why it is highly oriented to developer needs.

This is a great point - and quite true in my experience as well. I would not build a business using an open source project backed by a tech giant.
Curious, since this is open source: is it possible to try out the software on a desktop machine first?
That sounds like saying we cant have laws which forbid things I don't like, and no laws against things I do like.

We have final arbitrators of truth, they are laws, judges and juries. It isn't a perfect system, and it might not scale, but I see no need to abandon the idea some things are fundamentally incorrect, and get rid of those things.
I'd prefer the newspaper to highlight the "factual errors" rather than withdraw the article, but they do need to do one of those things to maintain their editorial integrity.

> I bet barely anyone notices.

It took a single search to find plenty of articles covering this.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20201105/france-is-not-fighting-isla...
It's worse than that, the algorithms these companies use sometimes purposefully promote these random claims because they lead to more user engagement.

For example teenage girls searching for weight loss on YouTube were more engaged when shown videos on eating disorders like anorexia. YouTube addressed that by tweaking the algorithm, but there's an endless number of edge cases like that and fixing it by tweaking the algorithm is like playing an never ending game of whack-a-mole. It's fundamentally unwinnable - the problem is optimizing for engagement itself.

As many people here may have noticed at some point, the same thing happened with flat Earthers and other conspiracy theories. In fact for a while it was common knowledge that you could start on any YouTube video and keep watching from the recommendations, and with an hour or so that would eventually lead to crazytown - videos just showing bigfoot and aliens and flat earth stuff.
There's a strong undercurrent of Scary Foreign Election Interference to a lot of the pro-censorship arguments, FWIW.
The president of the United States has been using these platforms to lie to the entire world unashamedly. For the most part not even the skillful half truths, statistics and selective quoting that politicians are known for, just complete fabrications and nutjob conspiracies.

The corporations had the choice to continue to be complicit, silence him completely or provide some balance from other sources. It seems to me that they choice a cautious and sensible approach.
> They try to claim that Facebook "failed" to create a workable AI, but I seriously doubt that Facebook has given up on the project.

On the one hand, they probably haven't. On the other hand, they provably aren't as close as they thought they were, and may be very far away.
> When did it call the liger a "lion" when it acts like a tiger?

In ascribing economic inequality to capitalism when economic inequality is a consequence of a captured regulatory regime that prevents the capitalists from engaging in market activity that would rectify the inequality.

> In my mind it's acting like a liger, but the lion bits are fundamental to the problem, and hence why the tiger is showing.

In my mind its acting like a liger but the tiger bits are the cause of the problem so its inappropriate to call it a lion.
I cannot recommend Alan MacDonald's two books enough (Linear and Algebra; and, Vector and Geometric Calculus). They literally replace reams of texts on complex numbers, quaternions, octonions, spinors, etc. under a single unifying concept. (They don't replace those concepts; and, for sure, if you want to learn quantum you're going to need them; but they make getting your head around them so much easier.)

One issue is that most of the "online" references are crap. MacDonald's presentation is a wonderful slow ramp: it starts with really basic linear algebra and then just slowly segue's into geometric algebra.

I firmly believe that in 100 years we just won't be teaching 'bare' linear algebra, complex, quaternions, ... we'll just teach GA and then introduce the physical concepts separately.
Hi - how did you lock down your kids iPhone? Am more of an android man but will be getting a refurbed iPhone 7 for my daughter (apparently they are "better" than Samsung)
Pardon the derailment, but "To each is own" is a fascinating mondegreen [1] I've been seeing surprisingly often lately. The classic phrase was the strangely gendered "to each his own [choice]" and the "proper" phrase is probably "to each their own [choice]". "To each is own" implies something else, but I'm not entirely sure what. "To each is own[er] [of choices]" perhaps?

I've seen it like two or three times in recent weeks and find it fascinating. (Sorry, not trying single you out, or derail the conversation too much, but armchair linguistics is a hobby of many on HN and somewhat curious if others have spotted it.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen
Of course, I just didn't want you to think I've huffed off or something. Take care.
>The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques

I don't know where you're from, but it's part of the Victorian (possibly Australian) curriculum for all year 12 students.
And we still ended up with Rupert Murdoch.
My understanding is there are so many financial regulations that it is very hard for tech companies to own, I work in financial services and I can tell you the amount of red tape and paperwork is significant both inside and need to file with regulators. The CEO had mentioned once that there were regulations that prevented companies like amazon and google jumping into financial things.
The single most important difference between react and vue is that vue has 2-way data binding while react doesn’t.

It leads to completely different ways of organizing code.

I much prefer react, in that it really feels like functional programming with immutable data.

But I know a lot of people who are much more at ease with vue.

My point: it’s not about “lightweight” or “non intrusiveness”. It’s really about how your data flows through your app...
Some choice quotes:

"Google does not sell user data and extension developers may not do this either."

"Prohibiting the use or transfer of user data for creditworthiness or any form of lending qualification and to data brokers or other information resellers."

"The item listing page will also display whether the developer has certified that their extension complies with this new policy."

Calling it certified is a bit misleading since Google is the one auditing, and they are not certifying anything.

Not looking forward to having my extensions updates being arbitrarily prevented from updating and not getting any clear answers from Google about what the actual problems are.
Tessellations: Mathematics, Art, and Recreation
Just to add a quick anecdote to this. We have a massive webapp done using React using all the fancy tools.

One day I had to code a relatively complex email to send to clients, so I had to go back to template rendering.

What a joy it was. I realized what a mental burden React and it's ecosystem have become.
This is probably the first based HN post, ever? And of course it is flagged to death.
> I don't think you can effectively inoculate the average person against this stuff with education.

A lot of school curriculums ostensibly include critical thinking skills because this is seen as important, but don't tend to teach this in practice.

Classes tend to focus on how to jump the hoops of getting good grades (without accepting any critical analysis of the grading system).

Are you then really teaching children to be critical, or really teaching them that it's best to conform to what they are told? It becomes difficult to teach children critical thinking skills, because of the way schools are presented to them as an objective authority.

I think this work can be done, however - and is most often done by lone wolf teachers acting alone and outside of classroom norms. That's certainly my experience.
Even company-mandated spyware is superior to hauling everyone into an office in the middle of a pandemic.
I mean, in that article, he makes a pretty coherent point:

> Obama: If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis.

I don't think that's out of place in a conversation about today's internet/media landscape. He's not saying "the internet is bad," or even "social media is bad"; he's saying that the internet clearly has the potential to amplify disinformation to a point that becomes harmful, something I think anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree with.
> Mandated unions

Unions aren't mandated by law anywhere.
https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-...
Conversely, it has never been easier to inject true claims that are inconvenient for gatekeepers. What tilts the balance of equities in favor of censorship for you?
What does collecting telemetry have to do with walled garden ecosystems that are used to squeeze every ounce of profit out of developers? Doesn't even makes sense.
> We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It's the literal definition of fascism.

Well, its arguably corporatism, which exists in lots of non-fascist systems as well as being a part of fascism, and propagandizing the population, which also is done by lots of non-fascists systems, but unless its coupled with totalitarianism and militant, xenophobic nationalism I don't think going "fascism" is literally accurate of the current state, though its definitely a risk (since the propagandization + corporatism easily enables at least totalitarianism, and is also quite leverageable for the rest.)
Many reasons:

1. Technically, TPU is less generalized, making it publicly appealing requires too much engineering effort, which has very high risk of not paying off. Case in comparison: How AMD is not able to capitialize on GPU in Deep Learning despite more uniform architecture.

2. TPUs does have some advantage, that Google want to keep at its own possession. For example, Google would not want FB to easily copy TPUs. FB indeed very likely benefit from TPUs, as they are running similar business.
Study: How smoking worsens Covid-19 infection in the airways
Anyone who actually use the excuse of "foreign interference" for totalitarian censorship basically basically doesn't believe in the concept of democracy.

"Foreign interference" has been going on from day 0 in the United States. It very obviously got us into WW-1 (the British -a largely untold but very obvious info ops campaign for something that served no US national interest), it got us into the middle east (nothing the US does there happens but for foreign interference from Saudis, Emirates and Israelis, who overtly bribe our think tanks and politicians), and it fairly obviously got us our "free trade" policies which gutted the US manufacturing capabilities to the point we can't make enough surgical masks in the US to protect our people (thanks, China).

None of the above happened because of dipshits saying things on twitter or facebook or sharing Russia Today articles. None of the above will go away if the CIA, the political center and the tech oligarchs censor the internet to protect us from meaningless internet bugaboos.

It's a naked power grab, and anyone who supports it because of "muh democracy" is a collaborator with tyranny.
Huh? It's the exact opposite. In the US sites like Facebook & Twitter routinely refuse to censor conservative content even if it is against their policies because they are afraid of pissing off Republicans in Congress.

A "liberal" on Facebook calling for the beheading of a conservative politican would be banned (possibly even arrested) immediately. The opposite can and does happen every day, with no penalty.

And all this still isn't relevant because we are talking about government censorship.
Probably very few if any. I think the main use cases would be convenience for playing around with things locally and students.
You are talking about Bush the 2nd right?
> Yes, it's feudalism

Its really, really not feudalism, which is highly de-centralized.
Maybe I'm naive, but I'm done with trying to create startups that integrate within current online ecosystem. Startup culture bullshits on so much about "pain points" to solve in the world, but surely one of our biggest societal pain points right now is the Orwellian panopticon being assembled before us.

Online culture desperately needs rewilding, and I'm at the point now where I believe it is my moral obligation to only work on projects that work toward decentralizing the internet.
EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2
Wasnt that an editorial decision? he did write an opinion about them but how did he get them to pull them down?
If I make $0 a year I should be able to put the app on my phone without having to pay as well. And not just for 7 days and have to resign it every 7 days.
> it is not so clear that people involved in voting systems can't have a incentive to make elections rigged

It is not so clear that there is a reasonable mechanism by which they could rig elections. When they make the hardware and software they have no idea what candidates will actually be on the ballots when the machines are used.
Is Apple Silicon ready for developers?