skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But we do expect them to be able to evaluate the facts relevant to the basic political participation of voting.

Do we?

Let's address this on two levels: First do we really expect people to evaluate the facts relevant to who they choose to vote for? I mean on the one hand, the system does this, yes. But not because we have any particular amount of faith that everyone is ready to bear the responsibility. Instead, we're resigned to the fact that all the other options are worse. I mean the founders absolutely didn't trust the people to evaluate their leadership, unless you were willing to restrict the definition of "people" to "white male landowners".

Hell, even more, the constitution as written (and federalist 68 explicitly) suggested that the people themselves shouldn't select the president, but only select representatives who ultimately do the selection. The justification for this was that said representatives would hopefully be more capable than the average individual of weighing all of the requirements of the office.

So the founders certainly didn't share your faith. Nor, even today, does the constitution itself. Ultimately though, having a well informed populace is very different from having a kritarchy, and having reputable media is necessary for a well informed populace.

If you're bombarded with two contradictory pieces of information (which I'd argue is in many cases the explicitly strategy of some of the media), you either need to be an expert on the topic, or your only approach is to trust people. Like, are you really saying we expect the average American to be able to evaluate the facts relevant to economic policy? Nobel prize winners disagree!

But that's just the first layer. There's a second layer here:

At this point we're no longer talking about the political participation of voting. That's already happened. The votes are in. What we're talking about is asking people to evaluate the facts of obscure election law that's in most cases never been tested. The average American isn't a constitutional Judge. But, to use your word, the president has asked unelected judges to directly overrule the will of the people literally dozens of times. That's kritarchy (or just raw authoritarianism, your choice). The actual experts, the judges, have resoundingly said no. Like, among the experts, there is no controversy here. And yet the conspiracy theory persists. Why is that?
Best case: there's a lot of legal kerfuffle and he is a multi-billionaire

Worst case: there's a lot of legal kerfuffle and he is a multi-billionaire
> I don't listen to right wing media. Or left wing media. They're both terrible.

One is substantially more terrible than the other, and seems to be perpetually stuck in lala land.

> Voter fraud gets claimed after every election.

Not at this scale.
Ugh -- I hate how Medium needs to know who I am before showing me an article. Based on the first sentence, though, this looks like a cool blog post.
I will come out and say I have not looked at a single court case nor do I look at Trump twitter nor do I read any social media beyond Hacker News. My interest in politics is not partisan. I am not here to debate the likelihood of any sort of fraud because internet debates about this kind of thing are pointless.

The rationalistic question is something along the lines of "how do you adjust your priors of voter fraud based on the rhetoric of the party alleged of committing the fraud." The lazy answer is "your voter fraud prior should always be zero." Is that the right answer? There's are interesting discussions to be had here. They likely cannot be had on Hacker News.

Many people have beliefs about Trump where, IF I had the same beliefs I'd totally be on board with voter fraud to get him out of office.
It is single cloud instance (Yandex Cloud, 80 vCPU Intel Cascade Lake, network storage).
D-Link Routers at Risk for Remote Takeover from Zero-Day Flaws
How many (Apple) devices can be simultaneously paired with the Airpods?
It's been years since I've had them, but we always just put a light coating of flour on them and fried them in a pan. Add a little salt and pepper or some paprika and they were delicious.
It isn't this simple. You have millions of LoC already written, docs, onboarding, hundreds of teams with different opinions, training people in a different tech stack.

In green field development or smaller companies, sure, I however do not find it as exciting since there are not real people / technical challenges most of the time, once you compare with what you can build with 1000s of engineers.
When we at Handsontable switched to a proprietary license, it wasn't met with much enthusiasm from the existing open source users. But it helped us to get better deals. We invested part of the proceeds in another open source project - HyperFormula. The ideology is still in our blood and we keep the open source circle of life running. But I am happy that this new open source project is not on a collision course with revenue.
From the article:

> In early November, Bloomberg first reported that Hyundai was in talks to acquire Boston Dynamics from Tokyo-based SoftBank Group. The Japanese conglomerate is selling off non-core business assets after it was hit hard by a series of soured bets, including WeWork and Uber. In September 2020, Softbank sold Arm to NVIDIA for $40 billion.
> ... easier to regulate one giant company than a myriad of smaller ones

This sounds... incorrect.

Small players are much more vulnerable to fines and other penalties which range from 'cost of doing business' to 'slap on the wrist' for the big guys. And small ones don't seem to have much in the way of lobbying power or other direct influence over regulators.

Maybe more accurate to say that it's a bit harder to police lots of small players, but also that it's only the small players who produce good behaviour under regulation.
For better or worse, I really doubt this matters.

Even Bill Gates has cleaned up his reputation, let alone engineers who worked at MS in monopoly days. I don't think anyone that was there at the time is worried about how it reflects on them personally.
Tech company executives are being summoned into congressional hearings about it and pressured by the government to censor speech. The fact that the government, congress no less, is pressuring a private entity to do this constitutes the government itself censoring speech. This is just the pressure we know about.

"But the hearing instead left Facebook, Google and Twitter facing conflicting pressures -- from Democrats who say they should patrol their sites and services more aggressively and Republicans who felt the companies should have a more hands-off role with most political speech."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter...
No. Under Section 230, they are treated mostly as a distributor, like a book store or a news stand.
I used to program robots that made body panels. I think people get fixated on the “electric vs. combustion” part and can lose sight of how much other manufacturing is involved. The traditional auto companies have decades of lessons learned related to quality. To their credit, Tesla seems to learn fast but has had a lot of growing pains related to areas like quality control. There’s a surprisingly large amount of issues to prepare for when you make a seemingly straightforward design change like changing the material composition of an component to save money or weight, for instance.
My experience is exactly the opposite: I was eager to emigrate during Trump term in the office, despite him making it difficult. Now that Biden has won, I know that emigration should become much easier, but it also became pointless.
Didn't Google buy and then sell them already?
Probably. Texas is crazy. I'm surprised they aren't also suing Tennessee or any of the other states that changed election laws in the last 20 years.

Source: Grew up in Texas. Took Texas government classes. (Justices of the Peace are responsible for determining cause of death in counties without suitable medical authorities. The only requirement for a JP is to be breathing. One recorded a body with a dozen or so bullet wounds as "suicide.")

This isn't the article I was looking for (trust me, the story of a state legislator crawling through transoms in the capitol to make off with early copies of legislation was hilarious), but it's pretty good. Go down to "ten worst".

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-ten-best-and-the-t...
Companies can and do take freedoms away all the time - and sometimes we even let them. There's just not constitutional protections preventing companies from taking those freedoms away.
> and it turned out that the facts were confirmed by the current administration’s DoJ

"The" facts? Is there a master list of facts that I'm not aware of out there somewhere? Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years?

> The crazy shit that Trump is saying is a figment of his own imagination and nothing more.

Trump says a lot of crazy things - are you suggesting that you've somehow fact-checked all of them, and found every single one to be literally nothing more than a figment of his own imagination? This seems fairly unlikely - might it be possible that the origin of your belief has some similarity to your theory about the origin of Trump's beliefs?
The proposition can be disproved very early in the chain of logic, actually.

1. Startups are risky.

True.

2. Raising capital to do a startup reduces skin in the game (you’re spending other people’s money, after all).

Arguable, but not a given. Raising capital does not eliminate risk, especially if one has their own money in it, and/or are using it as a job. Just because someone else invested doesn't necessarily reduce my incentive. I lose money, time, face, and opportunity with or without investment.

3. Once you have less skin in the game, it is easier to make bad decisions. The author argues this is due to a) having a capital buffer to cushion you, and b) having more time to waste.

100% false. It is no easier or harder to make bad decisions with outside money. It is ALWAYS easy to make bad decisions, having more money simply makes it easier to make costlier bad decisions faster. Buying real estate in late 2006 was a bad idea regardless of whose money you used. If anything, having that outside money means you have people to be accountable to, people to run decisions by, and thus it's HARDER to make a bad decision.
If it's truly essential then that company should be nationalized and run by the government.
> it will just make all confidence in video evidence disappear

You don't see a problem with that?

Why stop there, why have confidence in anything any longer? Earth is flat, earth is round? Who knows, both are likely.
That quote is specifically referencing whether Trump actively participated in the efforts, which is not part of any of this discussion (though many of his close associates did).
We're in a bubble, every IPO is being bought, we're in the manic state, "stocks only go up" they say, people FOMO into all kinds of stocks. I think we're in the peak time of scams, grifters and conmen. Heck, even the president is one. BTC at all time valuation again. Everything is amazing in the stock market right now. But look at the food lines, look at the covid cases and deaths, unemployment. We're heading to an insolvency event.
Your entire post makes it sound like Trump is some kind of dictator. Yet he can't even tweet without a bright red warning message disputing it. If Trump is having his message subverted, then maybe your views on censorship are misdirected?
It's weird to me that we still have people that still cling to the idea that censorship and curation of content is always evil and every site on the Internet should allow completely unmoderated speech, when we've seen over and over and over that such sites always devolve into festering echo-chambers of hatred and racism. Always. Every time.

Not only are you conveniently ignoring that reality, but you're also ignoring the fact that humans are humans. False information is much more powerful than true information, and "making up your own mind" is simply not possible when you are bombarded with orders of magnitude more false information that has been carefully constructed and self-selected to misinform you and appeal to your emotions.

Stop. Just stop. You're not helping. You're not enlightened. You're part of the problem.
> some impartial account of what really happened

We do see students, even at the college level, claiming that the high quality academic writing they are assigned in curricula is "liberal indoctrination". This method does not function because even the most well researched academic study of these topics can be simply rejected out of hand by students who have been fed lies about the very structure of education.
StyleGAN2-Based Model Generates Photo-Realistic Pizza Images
Dailymotion, Vimeo, Facebook, etc.
Do you yourself have first hand knowledge that what is being said are lies, or are you relying on a 3rd party media source to determine what's real and what isn't?

> he's personally profiting hugely, while brainwashing them and whipping them up into frenzy

Who's being whipped up into a frenzy, how do you know this to be true? Did you see it on... the news? Members of which political party recently participated in wide-spread property crime (aka 'peaceful protests' depending on which 'news' organization you follow)?

Can't you see how applying one set of standards to your preferred political views and another to those you disagree with is hypocritical?
Those east cost states just have a lot of debt (including their unfunded deferred compensation such as defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare), plus debt from old infrastructure that needs to be updated.
Very nice! It might well be possible to produce economically at scale, just by growing your sales and production, over time. Then, when you eventually retire and sell the company to some boring company that cuts costs and quality, the cycle can begin again, with a guy who realizes there's a niche...
This doesn't make sense who authorized Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions at the first place? FTC [1]

It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is.... I look at you MySpace and Twitter.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c...

"The Federal Trade Commission has closed its nonpublic investigation of Facebook's proposed acquisition of Instagram, Inc., without taking any action. Accordingly, the deal may now proceed as proposed."

"The Commission vote to close the investigation was 5-0."
> which usually results in them reaching out for more drugs the next time they have problems

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

— Hunter S. Thompson
Crime in almost every category has gone down over the last decade. You have to be crazy to think gang activity has gotten worse over the same time period. Immigration is not the domain of the state. I'd argue that given the number of people here, the traffic could be a lot worse. I've personally seen worse gridlock on worse infrastructure in other states with less people. Even if you account for the days that fires affect a significant amount of people's weather experience, we still have great weather for the vast majority of the year.

It's not perfect by any means but you could easily draw up a similar list for any state. A state is a big area and it's probably more useful to talk about most of these kinds of things at a local level.
>Do you have any examples of large scale corruption inside EU?

It doesn't happen with the one large corruption scheme taking all of the money. Its hundreds of small corruptions like a locust.

Here is a fair and neutral attempt to catalog all the schemes in play:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/prevention-fraud-corruption-...

In return:
Do you have an example of where the EU paid anywhere below 200% of industry standard price for anything?

I'm not arguing its more corrupt than say the US Congress. Its on par, with some weird extremes. For example: Berlusconi, a prime minister, spending public money on under age prostitutes, serving today freely as a member of the EP. That kind also owned most media companies in his country and implemented favourable regulation and tax exemptions for himself.

Here in the Netherlands, there is something referred to as the 'job carousel'. Where favourable regulation by politicians is rewarded in the future (after a political carreer) by very highly paid gigs in the industries and companies they favoured. Technically legal, and very hard to legislate against. Its a refined form of corruption, but it has all the same downsides. During Corona for example, the Netherlands had trouble getting its testing in order. Turned out we had excluded big commercial labs from consideration because we had represenatites of the 'small artisinal labs' in our taskforce lobbying. A small scale corruption, with heavy economic distortion as a result!

I'm also not perse blaming corruption on the politicians themselves. We are all together responsible for the corporate and governance culture we breed. Yet we shouldn't pretend we currently have the ability to spend/invest money effectively and fairly as a collective.
Sticking by Facebook now might be seen as a desirable trait in the eyes of some future employers. I'm looking at you Oracle.
Starship SN8 test flight at 4PM EST
The political party I agree with is factually correct! The other party is insane!

I wonder if the people you disagree with would say the exact same thing?
Previous submission is just 3 months ago and points to newer version of the paper. Obviously I should have searched by title before submitting.
Thanks Dang
That makes sense and you make some really good points.

I have one idea (usually these ideas are fragile and blow up in my own mind, but bear with me).

What if anyone that posts something on social media requires x ratio of likes/dislikes (before spreading) from anonymous users from a truly random selection of people. What would the information landscape look like?

What if we self-censor through some small but liberal consensus - the ratio threshold is up for debate.
IIUC you can't really tip the restaurant on doordash either just the delivery person.
It’s so easy to get unlucky with hashtags, am I right? I heard Twitter is working on a program to label hashtags that ignorant people keep taking too literally.

It’s baffling that #NotMyPresident would somehow give you the idea that Trump was not legally the president.
It seems like the health of the debate has a lot to do with your opinion of the arguments presented. See how this works? What you're talking about is viewpoint censorship with extra steps
That's an interesting response. I started my first comment by playing devil's advocate with myself. I'm almost a free speech absolutist, but I also really hate all the crazy, conspiratorial thinking that is so common these days. It puts me odds with myself. I can't say I'm sad when crazy and dangerous ideas are removed from the internet. However, I think it's clear to see how this could be abused. A system where the "right" ideas are allowed depends on the people in charge having the "right" ideas. When such things are possible, the pendulum swings quickly. (ie, if the government could really truly censor, imagine how the kind of censorship would differ between a red and blue administration.)

And, this is part of the problem: can you trust the government to decide what sort of speech is appropriate. I don't mean now, with regards to this particular issue. I mean every time this problem crops up for the next 50 to 100 years. It relies on the same theoretical. What if instead, it's the company which is telling the truth, but the government which is malicious, and wants to censor them?
You were able to get sushi, dim sum, boba, bagels, or even steaks promptly delivered in a few clicks before 2013? DoorDash is an easy example of a startup that has made my life better, especially during a pandemic.
I agree, artificial constraints often lead to the most creative results, be it haiku or fantasy consoles like PICO-8.
The idea that they were highly receptive to extensive moderation is questionable at best.

But one major problem is they allowed anyone to upload AND download. So userA would upload child abuse imagery. userB would download it. PornHub would delete video uploaded by userA. userB would reupload with different video name. userC would download the reupload.

It's playing whack-a-mole with illegal child abuse imagery. Interestingly PornHub only really started caring when payment processors started looking into things. But better late than never.
Do random people get thrown in jail because of fake finger prints today?
What Is the Domain Model in Domain Driven Design?
He was part of the Trump campaign in 2016 and from the 3rd to the 6th he interacted with various Twitter accounts that fueled the conspiracy and his fundraising was clearly attracting an audience who read between the lines.

GoFundMe is in their right to believe there was dog-whistling.
GOP doesn't want Trumps cult to turn on them, Democrats don't want the cult on the left to turn on them either ;)

It's a bit funny both sides proclaim that only the other side is in a bubble.
Wrong? No, just early. Yahoo and AOL were really big and growing... until they weren't.
I wonder how much this has changed with the continued increase in stock values and new companies going public. Uber, Doordash, etc. aren't the losers that they appeared to be even just a couple months ago.
> Imagine telling a bunch of Jews that Hebrew was a load of nonsense and they're better off learning German, French or Spanish.

You mean Israelis right? Many jews outside Israel don't know Hebrew.
I have a hard time understanding how this view can be held when we know that there is "censorship" and "moderation" happening in EVERYTHING we do online.

There is a reason you can't find snuff films, pornography, abuse or other exceptionally offensive videos on YouTube. You have to go on some shady websites to get to that kind of content and I'm sure even there some censorship happens so the admins are not legally liable for content.

How about text? Highly classified government information and informant data can put peoples' lives at risk so some text must be "moderated".
Having a Facebook account is a symbolic/emotional injury to a tech contrarian, but I don’t see the courts particularly caring about that. It’s not like you have to actually spend any time or money on it.
yes, to softbank.
The rules were changed prior to the election, in a way that clearly favours the democratic party. That should raise suspicion.

We also had :

1. Unusually low mail in ballot vote rejection rate (0.02 vs 6% previous elections)

2. Unusually many voters

3. Unusually high turnout in specific areas (90%+)

4. Delay in announcing results

5. Results that don't match (6000 votes flipped back to Trump after "glitch"

Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190