skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An interesting step to be sure, and the responses here reflect similar sentiments elsewhere (some think it's censorship, some think it's stewardship, and still others think it's Google's pool so they get to decide who is allowed into it)

I find the meta question fascinating. That question is "If you have a tool that can influence millions any way you choose to influence them, what role should the state play in regulating that tool?"

With things like, say, nuclear weapons. It seems really easy to say "I don't want just anyone in the country to be able to go out and buy a nuclear weapon and possibly put their entire city at risk of annihilation if they decide to set it off!" And in many conversations we get to that perspective because the "innocent" bystanders who would be killed by this act have no way to realistically protect themselves from that threat. Thus we accept that the state, which has community support to protect the community, is given the right to say who can and who cannot "own" a nuclear weapon. It isn't even all that controversial in the general public even though there will always be people who take the position that the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms" does not exclude any "arms" it's a blanket right. And yet for most people, keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of just any individual seems a reasonable limitation.

But what about media? We have seen first hand the destructive effects of coordinated campaigns of disinformation. In the hands of a skilled operator, millions of individuals can be manipulated into actions that they would not have contemplated. Whether it is for giving power to criminals, or killing themselves and their children by drinking cyanide laced Kool-aid.

When it becomes possible for a small group to do great harm to a much larger "innocent" group, what is the right action to take? What consensus does the community come to which supports governance for everyone versus rights for the individual?

I believe it to be a much more complex question than simply "censorship" / "no censorship" and letting individuals protect themselves from these sorts of operators. Just as I believe it is unreasonable for individuals to be held responsible for protecting themselves from one of their neighbors possibly setting off a nuclear weapon, or spraying them with a machine gun.

From what I have read, in the US the sense of "justice" is tied to the perpetrators of an act of harm being suitably punished for that act. And I certainly feel harmed by the egregious disinformation that has made my relationship with my parents much more difficult. But how do I get justice for that harm? I really don't have a good sense of the right and just answer here.
I do not believe there was widespread election fraud, but having a private company control what information people are allowed to see & hear is also dangerous. YouTube has the right to do this as a private company, but it's also a dangerous precedent.

I think a better approach, instead of broad censorship, would be simply inserting warning statement(s), at least in front of the material. They already stick in ads, so the tech is there. That way, the material is still available, but with warnings. We "show but warn" with many other materials (sexually explicit, violence, etc.) - I think that would be the much better way to handle such materials.
Let's not remove the end of that quote so quickly:

"Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr."

I think Attorney General William Barr did not correctly summarize the findings of the Mueller report, and was acting to drive an incorrect narrative.

Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did.
If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true. For example, the art of reading the newspapers should be taught. The schoolmaster should select some incident which happened a good many years ago, and roused political passions in its day. He should then read to the school-children what was said by the newspapers on one side, what was said by those on the other, and some impartial account of what really happened. He should show how, from the biased account of either side, a practised reader could infer what really happened, and he should make them understand that everything in newspapers is more or less untrue. The cynical scepticism which would result from this teaching would make the children in later life immune from those appeals to idealism by which decent people are induced to further the scheme of scoundrels.

--Bertrand Russell
Cutting emissions by regulation is a continually losing battle.

You can't tell people to live a lower-quality life and expect to win elections, and you'll have the combined lobbyists of a lot of different interests against you.

It's actually more tractable to invent fusion than to try and win that battle long-term -- at least it's theoretically possible to make fusion work. And heck, if we could put some $ in pockets while doing it, that's something that could pass!
All of recorded human history is evidence that this is false. Consider the Holocaust, the Salem Witch Trials, Lysenkoism, The Great Leap Forward, Aztec human sacrifices, and so many others. Even if you just consider the relatively modern United States just look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, Jim Crow Laws, and so many others.

I am against censorship, but not because I believe that bad ideas can't take hold and cause enormous damage. I just believe that the benefits of living in a society with free speech outweigh the costs.
It is a flawed argument. Censorship may help democracy in the short term, but long term it effectively invites authoritarian rule. A good comparison may be forced ranking system. It can be used temporarily to 'get rid of dead wood', but long term use is asking for only biggest assholes to stick around.

Censorship is not that different. There is no nuance here. Person with power will determine what you can and cannot see. That kind of power does not allow for nuance.
If a game dev team thinks they can stop people from gaining an unfair advantage from just preventing people from running Linux they are morons. Even if you were in Windows you have to do is setup an inverse Linux VM to operate on the local host network in which case it would essentially be a daemon. Even with cigwin and a few other tools, you can use strace to inject system calls and override values right into the PID of the game
Vtuber
No, and I don't think anyone sees them this way (the same way "free speech" loving Republicans wouldn't consider themselves "liberals").

The police are almost always tools of authoritarianism. They act as, well, authority figures when it comes to who is a criminal, which allows for so much abuse. Most courts basically take it for granted that if a cop and a civilian say opposing things, if there is no other evidence the cop is to be the trusted figure.
Nicely designed puzzle for a daily brain workout.

It gets more interesting after 20 levels.
Does no-one else notice that the argument to "allow them all to speak" is completely isomorphic to the Creationist vs argument to "teach the controversy" (1) in their bid to suppress the long settled science of Evolution?

Does anyone think that "teach the controversy" is a good idea and was done in good faith? (hint: no and no)

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
You're essentially suggesting that Android should have Tor built in. The point is that it's possible to use other push services on Android and has been done, just like it is possible to use Tor on Android. There is no reason that AOSP itself needs to implement Tor any more than Windows or AOSP needs to provide a push API. Both are possible to implement on top of the platform and have been implemented on top of the platform.

This is unlike iOS, which is the real broken platform.
That level of typical HN entitlement is yikes. Cursed energy.
The stackdriver acquisition was a big eye-opener for Google. Well, should have been. I don't know if they actually learned any lessons. ;)

In theory, they expected merging SD into the GCP UI to be straightforward, because they're both Angular. In practice... Angular is a framework for inter-component communciation, not an SDK. And it's not a profoundly opinionated framework---the way the two codebases use Angular is so wildly disjoint that a merging was basically impossible without a rewrite. They don't even use the same date-time libraries.

One does wonder why they don't give up on the unification model.
GoFundMe is allowed to look at off platform behavior to decide.
>Section 230 was created after people sued ISPs using laws intended to allow lawsuits against newspapers.

No, they sued a Prodigy as a forum, not as an ISP. The distinction is critical. ISPs are closer to common carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
The big cities are something like 70/25 blue/red as of 2020, and you can be pretty sure they despise Ken Paxton et al. If you want to expand “the area you live in where people agree with me” to states the size of Texas/California, you can do that. But it seems a little silly to me. And you’ll have made a difference via voting when/if Texas votes these people out.
Oh my god. Seriously, go attend a super spreading rally and fuck yourself.
> P.S: a lot of the young in Europe are learning english because they want to get the f--- out the EU as soon as they can.

This is absolutely not true. English is tought in most schools simply because it's used worldwide. Also, most of the people I know are very happy to live here, and most who may have wanted to emmigrate to the US lost any desire to do so after the four years of Trump.
See my other comment. The harvesting was done as a last resort, and the promise was that the data would only be used for this case, and that it'd be destroyed afterwards. Also, nobody was a suspect.
So is this just that poor people are disproportionately affected by covid?

I could say "Alaskans are disproportionately affected by testicular cancer", because their per capita rate of it is higher than any other state. But it has nothing to do with being Alaskan - they have a totally normal rate of testicular cancer - it is just because a higher percentage of men live there than anywhere else in the US.

And, her next tweet in that thread is her celebrating keeping playgrounds open. Yes, children need to play - but maybe they can spread covid there?
>What is "fascist" stuff?

In France fascism is not illegal. There is only one thing that is really taboo, and it's badmouthing jews. Herve Ryssen, a French writer and film maker, is sleeping in jail right now because the contents of his books and documentaries was considered to be hateful.

Similarly, the only few websites that are censored by the French government are far-right websites that typically have antisemitic content (a prominent case is Democratie Participative, the French equivalent of the Daily Stormer).

That's for institutional censorship. In practice, there is an even stronger form of de-facto censorship in France (assassination) for people who draw or show caricatures of the prophet of Islam (Charlie Hebdo, and more recently a history teacher who has been beheaded; quite a few more people live under 24/7 police protection for similar reasons).

It's a pretty grim situation overall.
Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence.

Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases.
I'm sorry that was uncalled for
> What factors make you want to get out? As an American who's spent a lot of time in both the US and Continental Europe (and elsewhere) I don't see any terrific suck.

At the risk of speaking out of turn, I've traveled extensively outside the US and befriended a lot of folks and had discussions on this topic with them. I would summarize my findings as such:

1. Economic Mobility: In Europe economic mobility, on average, is actually better than the US. But, for those who are educated and driven, economic mobility in the US is much much much higher. Average person may up their income by $10k/yr in PPP or more in Europe from young adulthood to adult-hood, average person in the US tends to stay flat. But driven, intelligent people with degrees in the US can double or triple their income from young adulthood to adulthood, and this simply doesn't happen in Europe. The tech industry is a major factor in this, where senior-level positions in non-FAANG companies can make upwards of $150k/yr in the US, and the PPP equivalent European salary is around half of that.

2. Lifestyle goals: In Europe, it is very hard to be successful as a young person outside of major metro areas. This is somewhat true for the US as well, and while business cultures are different in different areas, it's easier (pre-COVID) to work remotely for a US-based company vs a EU-based company, but usually requires working US timezone hours or relocating to the US. Additionally, Americans tend to lead faster paced public lives, but slower paced private lives, and the reverse tends to be the case for Europeans. Everybody has their own lifestyle preferences, and lifestyle also is a major factor in intra-EU movements as well (I have friends who moved from Belgium to Portugal for instance, due to lifestyle. Friends that moved from Germany to Spain, etc.)

3. Freedom: The US is more diverse and free in some aspects. There's a lot of nuance here, but while you obviously have a lot of history, linguistic, and food diversity in the EU, there's significant similarities in cultural expectations, especially in professional work environments once you enter the middle class. The US is a LOT more free in regards to one's behavior, lifestyle choices, and personal life when you are in the middle class, compared to Europe. This is probably more obvious in the UK than anywhere else, where class hallmarks are as direct as how you speak to someone verbally, where in the US it's possible to have a pronounced Southern accent and still be solidly middle class in a professional environment, even though that's not considered as high-brow as a West-coast accent would be. Europe is in many ways more diverse overall, but not really in the middle class and above environments. Also some people just want to be free to do whatever they want on their own property without anyone nosing in, and this is antithetical to the European communal mindset which is very often enforced legally through direct government regulation.
No, because it's not like I'm quiet about it to them so they have the opportunity to fix it, and also I'm not lying to them either. I give good ratings and tips otherwise. The tip-stealing thing is bad, but it seems like they've fixed it?
Me too.

To that end; if you aren't a magician and have no interesting in becoming one, do yourself a favor and don't try to figure out how a trick is done. You don't look at The Mona Lisa and yell, "That's not a real picture, he used paint to create it!" Not only is that rude to the magician but it ruins it for yourself. Appreciate and enjoy the art for what it is.
At least in DoorDash's YC application, they pitched that delivery drivers wanted to make more money.

When the drivers worked for one restaurant only, they would be sitting around most of the time waiting for an order.

By delivering for many restaurants at once on DoorDash, they would be able to make more money and have less idle time.

I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
I wouldn't do it justice[1], it deserves a blog post or a book [2] but in general solving almost any boolean algebra problem, in hundreds, and hundreds of thousands variables, very efficiently and in very compact representation (via ordered sparse bit vectors[3]).

While with Karnaugh maps you can simplify a boolean function with a few variables, BDDs can solve for thousands, fast.

And no need to explain applications of high-dimensional boolean algebra on HN, with boolean algebra you can solve any logic problem expressed as boolean function, any combinatorial problem (except for those with nasty functions), classic graph theory problems.

Surprisingly it allows to solve optimization problems[4], like boolean programming, SAT solver, max independent set or max cut in graphs, very efficiently, it can be used in something like belief propagation or lattice induction for inference, but if that's not enough you can use it for random number generation, lossless compression, perfect hashing, etc, etc.

I haven't seen such a versatile data structure elsewhere, most of the other things developed in the last 35 years, like the ones in the comment below are solving special cases, BDD is truly one of the most fundamental and severely underrated "swiss army knives" (that is in CS, EE people know it very well in logic synthesis and verification, BDD's first "killer app").

It's probably easier to list what you can't do with BDD, kind of like what you can't do with (high-dimensional) boolean logic.

I think it skipped the radar of CompSci community at large because it was too quickly siloed into "that circuit analysis/verification tool used by electrical engineers".

Yes, it's "just" a DAG but with very particular (and very simple) constraints which allow it to solve infinite variety of problems in a very elegant and surprising way [5].

[1] it's really worth watching the lecture on BDDs by Don Knuth , starting around 13:32, his enthusiasm is contagious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQE21efsf7Y&t=13m32s

Part 2 on ZDD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HzQYeqS9Wc

[2] TAOCP, volume 4A, Combinatorial Algorithms, p.202 - 280: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Computer-Programming-Combinatoria...

There is a free preprint here https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/fasc1b.ps.gz

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-suppressed_decision_diagr...

[4] Bergman, David, et al. "Discrete optimization with decision diagrams." INFORMS Journal on Computing 28.1 (2016): 47-66.

[5] Bryant, Randal E. "Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation." Computers, IEEE Transactions on 100.8 (1986): 677-691.

I hope that answers your question, dang, and sorry for title mishap.
You're purposefully diminishing the impact that opinion has, though. It would be a different matter if the legislature was prepared for that, but it's not.

Like it or not, the battle for abortion was fought with the Supreme Court. Saying "she just has a different view on where it should be fought" ignores the fact that it would essentially set us back 50 years in terms of reproductive rights.
Reader reviews are absolutely unable to determine most of the things the author points out. I generally don't read business books because my "school of thought" is that "science works for gaining understanding, nothing else does."

The author of this joke piece is pretty spot on in terms of the non-scientific mistakes these books almost always make. E.g. correlation != causation, anecdotes != data and so on.
Bring me information from outside my bubble and I'll happily incorporate it into my schema. Ominous pronunciations don't count, though. Is there some social media platform Jones is using that I haven't heard of that allows him to reach tens of millions of people and make up for his losses on FB, YT, and TW? Are his website stats wrong or irrelevant for some reason that is uniquely invisible in my bubble? These would be valuable bits of information to me.
GCP is something like a hundred APIs. It's not tractable to have one team responsible for a GUI that big.
yet all are willing participants...
It's worth noting that the NYT's 'best seller' list is hand-curated, and is not an objective list of books that have sold the most.
Ah, thank you! And so, what happened in Texas that "made an income tax unconstitutional"?
Reading some of these holier-than-thou comments from the left it is obvious that they would buy a bridge if someone sold it to them with a 30 day guarantee...
I would argue that the difference lies mostly with evidence: there is hard evidence of Russian propaganda campaigns via social media, and many lengthy (and non-partisan) investigations and reports backing it up. Not so for claims of election fraud this year, which we can tell by the scores of cases which have been lost or thrown out because the claims have no foundation in reality.

If there is fraud, I want to get to the bottom of it. Which is why I’ve been watching the court cases (plenty which have come before trump appointees), none of which are making progress.

The reality is that the election feels less secure this year because of the efforts by Trump et al to make it seem so. This is not normal and is not at all like the Democratic response in 2016. Hilary Clinton conceded the night of the election. The election is turning out to be significantly less close this year than it was in 2016. Trump’s response to loosing is to make it feel like he lost unfairly, by spouting nonsense and not following the norms of his predecessors. The norm of conceding when the election becomes clear is an important part of the process which helps people trust the results.

Trumps refusal to do so and resulting disinformation campaign is the reason the election isn’t trusted by some people this year. It’s disinformation: lies spread with the intent of misleading people.

In 2016, Democrats didn’t complain that widespread fraud occurred in the election and that it should be overturned. The general feeling was that it sucked to loose and a few figures even said we should at least give trump a chance. There wasn’t a disinformation campaign.

As it became more clear that Russian social media propaganda was fairly influential in polarizing voters in a certain direction, there was a lot of outcry about it. The fact that Trump never did anything about it is partly why it seems like there was collusion.

The reason why it may make sense for YouTube to make this move is just given how things have played out. The campaign has had a chance to prove that there was fraud, and it couldn’t provide any proof. These theories have had their day in the courts. Are we really loosing anything specifically by deplatforming it at this point? It’s had a chance to prove itself.

At this point in time, the disinformation is very hurtful to our society.

All of that said, I’m really not sure we should be ok with YouTube’s deplatforming abilities. It’s a tough situation since large media sites are becoming much more like public places than private. And obviously we have some laws against, e.g., causing unwarranted panic in public places because of the harm it can cause.

But I think this is a totally different situation than what you’re comparing it to.
The article isn't about the Mueller report, it's about the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee did conclude that collusion with Russian nationals, and possibly intelligence, occurred; they did so _separately_ from the Mueller investigation.
Typically the States each also have their own State Constitution. In this case, Texas could have amended their own State Constitution to say something akin to 'The State of Texas shall not impose a tax on the incomes of its residents'.
Fair, then maybe we can agree on the following:

"If your household income is > 1MM and you live in California, it is not surprising that you would want to leave"
Well Gore and Hillary both won popular vote and didn't win the election so it basically is a feature of American politics.
Yup, it can get hot in the summer.

On the flip side, winters are great! The best time of year is Mar/Apr and Oct/Nov. Absolutely gorgeous. There's a reason why SXSW and ACL are scheduled at those times...