skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You might read up on the Trusts era that brought about the Sherman Act[1]. Trains? Horse carriages and wagons were still available, not to mention boats. However, these are not equal modes of travel, though they are "similar" in that they are transportation, and so it's not about internet-based communities per se.

It's the fact that Facebook is "Facebook" that is the problem. That you can't imagine Facebook's equal being viable in any way, other than to mention the wagons and horses of the internet. This is not to comment on a level of sophistication, but features. What can you sell on TikTok through TikTok? It's a category error to equate them with FB. Facebook has cultivated this state of affairs, and they have gone out of their way to interfere with the success of companies it views as competition.[2]

This is even before we get to the use of Facebook to create negative externalities, for which it provides powerful tools. On purpose.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890#...

2. https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/in-antitrust-hearing-zucke...
I note that Texas doesn't have a state income tax.
Virtual New Team Member
Because in my opinion, freedoms should extend to every person: natural or legal, especially when promoting a absolutist view point.

If you are going to measured/weigh rights against the rights of other persons, then those limitations ought to be extended to natural persons too.
Sorry about this late reply, but also consider that their temporal existence could be different than ours. They could potentially live and die 100 lifespans in a day or visa versa. UFOs could potentially look like they are doing erratic flying maneuvers because they are in a different temporal environment than us.
The fact that the Slate article saying that a Martian underground base is impossible uses humans as a reference, and it shouldn't. I have a sinking feeling that people are assuming that these aliens breath oxygen like us. Or that they live on land like us. All of our physical, temporal, and other properties can be dissimilar to aliens, as they are often times to other plants and animals that live here on earth with us.
https://slate.com/culture/2020/12/mars-base-haim-eshed-galac...
It's funny to try to push privacy in the domain of search. Part of the reason Google does as well as it does is that it spies on you like crazy -- not just to provide better ads, but to contextualize search results.

I know that HN users complain about it a lot, but I nearly always find what I want from Google right up top -- if it exists at all. Much of the time, I don't even have to type it all, because its suggestions are often spot on, and apparently based on what else I've been googling.

Maybe they can provide good-enough results without that. I know a lot of HN readers have talked up Duck Duck Go for getting good results without the invasion of privacy. But while Apple has also been selling privacy lately, its users also want extreme convenience, a system that doesn't do everything but does only what they want (or learn to want). That's where Apple has always shined, and it'll be tricky to marry privacy to a really good search experience.
To elaborate: right wingers claim massive fraud, they claim to have evidence, but the cases they've taken to court have been flimisier than fifth grader writing assignments and have mostly been thrown out.

To grandparent commenter: at a certain point you have to use a bit of your intelligence and see for yourself whether a claim is full of shit or has merit. Unfortunately this might be an example of Dunning-Kruger in action...
you know you are on orange reddit right?
So what exactly is the problem here? Youtube (and capital in general) don't like the idea of a contested election leading to political uncertainty and they're using their platforms to advocate for that position. DoorDash and Uber did effectively the same thing with Prop 22 in California; if that's OK then so is this.
> 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.

Before YouTube, media was controlled by television channels, private companies who decided what they wanted to show.

Before TV, media was controlled by radio broadcasters, private companies who decided what they wanted to air.

And before that was print media, private companies who decide what is published.

So that ship has sailed. In fact it has been the norm for 99% of history. You can argue over whether we want to go back but you can't say this is some slippery slope to a dangerous future; that danger has arrived, and if anything it seems to be fuelled by the hyperdemocratisation of media.
>"The EU is ahead of the US in crude steel production, but we're about 6 times behind China."

People often throw around numbers like this without any context. In the other thread people were trying to judge economics of electric powerplants by total weight.

Why is this a relevant metric? Why would you not expect China, which is 2x the population and is building infrastructure to refine more steel? Like they also produce more food and plastic, so what?

It also is hardly correlated with wealth, wages or GDP. There has been a glut of steel on world markets for the past few years.

Are the kinds of steel produced even comparable, i.e. only recently China could produce ballpoint pens

www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-38566114
Looks like it:

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/master/server/lemmy_u...

That's the most offensive Regex I've ever seen.
So if that is the mental state of half the country - is democracy worth defending? Why not just ban wrong-think and come out and admit that authoritarianism is the best, since too many people are too stupid to make the right decisions?
MDMA Increases Cooperation and Recruitment of Social Brain Areas When Playing Trustworthy Players in an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/2/307

Abstract ran through a text optimizer:

We administered 100 mg MDMA or placebo to 20 male participants in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.

Cooperation with trustworthy, but not untrustworthy, opponents was enhanced following MDMA but not placebo.

Specifically, MDMA enhanced recovery from, but not the impact of, breaches in cooperation.

During trial outcome, MDMA increased activation of four clusters incorporating precentral and supramarginal, gyri, superior temporal cortex, central operculum/posterior insula, and supplementary motor area.

MDMA increased cooperative behavior when playing trustworthy opponents.

Our findings highlight the context-specific nature of MDMA's effect on social decision-making.

While breaches of trustworthy behavior have a similar impact following administration of MDMA compared with placebo, MDMA facilitates a greater recovery from these breaches of trust.
The fundamental problem is these tech companies are claiming to be fair 3rd party moderators of the internet and all media, but they are heavily biased. I highly recommend watching the documentary The Plot Against the President[1] on Amazon Prime. It does a very good job showing how the media does not report the facts anymore. I bet most people don't even know that the entire Trump and Russia ties / collusion were fabricated and proved patently false. The media decided to ignore reporting that, leading most people to think Trump has ties with Russia. It's dishonest and disingenuous and manipulating people to think a certain way and believe things that are not true.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Against-President-Devin-Nunes/dp...
Products like Admiral are why the Internet sucks. Everybody treating the Internet like their own little capitalist fiefdom consuming everything you do so you can be repackaged and resold a million million times.

I'm old enough to remember an internet that respected the sacred open ungated plain of knowledge. Publishers lost the privilege to monetize when they insisted on tracking, whether the visitor paid or not.
I actually disagree. Regulating a single giant company becomes an exercise in compliance, which American governments are absolutely terrible at. The single giant company has the resources to fight any action that could existentially threaten it. This winds up in its' own set of abuses.

In a robust market of smaller players the regulatory agencies can stick to rulemaking, investigation, and enforcement (civil fines/prosecutions), which is what they are great at. Smaller players don't have the resources to compete with the government and force them into regulatory trench warfare.

This is similar to the situation with the IRS — they spend most of their time auditing EITC cases, and other issues related to poor and middle class people. They don't have the resources to collect on the billionaires who have enough power to fight the government to attrition.
Most people take your view, but I would be very careful to claim that it's actually impossible to not have limits on freedoms. There are some who believe that the state should not exist at all; those types would not concede the ground that there exist any reasonable restrictions on fundamental natural rights.

Whereas a statist (i.e. someone who is not an anarchist) would basically always concede that there are limits on rights. To use US jurisprudence as an example, even the very pro-2A supreme court justices have ruled that the state has a compelling interest in reducing gun violence and thus is allowed to take guns away from violent felons, etc.

Personally, I take the former position; I think it's better to have a society where property rights (which includes the right of self-ownership i.e. owning your own body) and other natural rights (speech, self defense [technically these are just derived from property rights but I digress]) cannot be infringed upon for any reason. I am very heavily in the minority with that position, and I'm aware of that fact.

---

Anyway, switching back to the original topic of censorship of supposed "disinfo", if you don't buy a natural rights argument at all, then from a utilitarian perspective I think it's still a bad idea. In places like Saudi Arabia or Iran, the idea that women should be able to choose what clothing to wear or not wear would be considered harmful to society and worthy of censorship. In Turkey the idea that the Armenian genocide occurred could be considered worthy of censorship. In America the notion that we should not have warrantless wiretapping of all communications between private citizens could be considered dangerous to society, etc etc.

It always starts with a "good" reason. It never ends with one.
Do you think YouTube should suppress Black Lives Matter content? They've inspired, you know, actual violence, with disinformation.
I've read voltaire, but I've also read Rawls. And while I'm sympathetic to voultair's notion of freedom at any cost, I don't believe it holds up well to modern scrutiny.

Voultair's works predate successful democracies, large scale propaganda campaigns, and the internet. I choose these three examples because I believe these are at the heart of the current crisis.

Now I can see from your comment that you have a specific viewpoint of our current political climate. I empathise with your experience, and the feeling that the world is moving in a way that seems counter to your own understanding.

But, I worry that you are finding yourself in the position that I'm most concerned for. You are acting in a small way as a network repeater for exactly the kind of missinformation I'm worried about spreading.

And while I think a widespread doctoral conspiracy is far less likely than the possibility that HCQ is a bad drug to combat Covid-19. I'm far more concerned about the harm that we're doing to our democracy by rejecting the outcomes of what, by nearly all accounts, appears to be a successful election. One that again, for it to be a false narrative would require a huge conspiracy including members of both parties across numerous states.
And it's not even so much the faith in the election but the deep resentment afterwards that scares me. How do we repair the divide in the country when truth is being questioned as subjective. What is the shared ground we work from?
my wife always tells me to not mess with utensils option (on any delivery services) as we almost seem to not get any.

when we leave it at default, always get atleast 1 pair of cutlery.

when we specify we want more, normally end up receiving none.

i have done doordash pickup.
the estimated wait was 45 minutes.

i called the restaurant after about 20 minutes as i have ordered there directly over the phone before, and its only been 15-20 minutes wait for phone ordered.

they like oh yea, its already ready, we just punched 45 minutes into door dash just in case...
This isn't a small, poor individual; or even a small local business - so I'm not convinced the analogy holds, or at least I'm much less sympathetic.

Going from half a mil to 700 mil has to raise a few red flags. Even if they were forced to give back 80%, they would hardly be left desolate.
That's from her own words. If she instead wanted to push her own friend as a supplier, she would claim the same. Because it sounds like a good argument if you want to switch a supplier.

I would love to see some facts here, but all that is currently presented is just words. And I don't like that if you play the minority card, whatever you are saying is perceived by the public with more credibility than what your opponents are stating, regardless of the facts. This opens huge possibilities for abuse by opportunists and increases division in the society.
Line, Viber, Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.....there is so much competition in the messaging space.
>I wonder why you're the one sourcing your beliefs from controversial and disavowed summaries and partisan actors.

NPR, official press releases from the chairs of senate intelligence committees, etc. have not been disavowed and the facts agree with me.

Again, if you stop believing fake news and actually read what has been linked above, you will find that:

“Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy. We interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over one million pages of documents. No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive."

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
Andrew Yang Leads in NYC Mayoral Race
You created your account 1 hour ago to make this comment?
Is that actually a criteria in antitrust?
I guess I should have been clear that I meant stability + a democratic/republican system that preserves civil liberties, not stability with respect to the continuity of governments in the absolute sense.
From what I understand, the majority of the lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing not evidentiary reasons.
Alternating between an absolute blast and grueling, yep.

He'll get tons of pets and belly rubs when he wakes up, don't worry! :)
Intel's massive profit margins on CPUs exists primarily because they have long had a monopoly/ duopoly position in the market. If they transition to ARM, they are on a level playing field with Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD, and Apple.

Intel has a massive incentive to keep Microsoft reliant on x86. If Windows (or Linux even) shifts over to primarily ARM, their ability to extract outsized profits from the industry vanishes over-night.

Microsoft on the other hand has massive incentives to get anyone creating high end ARM CPUs to compete with Apple.
My specific instance was that I was the application security champion for a critical application application that had a SQL injection vulnerability (with full schema owner privileges!), but lower-level management wasn't making it a priority and didn't even assign any resources to remediate the issue. So I went to explain the issue to the department head because he was the owner of the application. As an ASC I answer to, and represent, the security division so I can talk to the owners of apps that I support regardless of the hierarchy. I think he didn't understand that dynamic, as I typically see managers breaking company policy and not caring (I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut on those issues). I didn't go to complain. I went to explain the problem and give him options and my recommendation.

He told me that we have a real-time backup system so he didn't think it was worth fixing. I then asked if we ever ran tests of that system and if we had documentation on how to restore from it. We don't. This is for financial trading application handling billions of dollars. Being down for even a few hours could be catastrophic.

The big man spoke. I don't agree with the outcome, but I'm not the boss. So that was the end of it (except for in discussions like this on here). I left for another team because there's no way I'm going to be the security champion for a system with that level of risk. And thank God you weren't my manager or I would have been fired under your #2 scenario.

On a side note, just because a small number of people are complaining doesn't mean their opinions are invalid. Minorities are often disenfranchised due to this thinking. Also, managers may not know all the policies for the company and may be violating them.

For a real life example combining these, company policy states that a person be evaluated against the standard and recieve a rating that way. Some departments mandate that if a manager pick a higher than average rating for someone, then they must pick someone else to balance it out with a lower rating. This would only affect 10% of the population and the number unjustly affected would be lower than that. So the other 90% recieved good rating, so why would they complain? The objective way I know that I was unjustly rated was because I had a manager friend who told me what happened in the meeting and said it was wrong.
>It's funny because I explicitly said that writing a comment and talking to friends is way different from making a video or a podcast because of the audience you might have and the presence of counterpoints

What is happening with YouTube, is happening with Twitter and Facebook, so your arbitrary distinction between video and text is a distinction without meaning. Twitter was built for off-the-cuff comment-type communication and Facebook was built for sharing posts and content with close relations. And yet the exact same 'curation' is being done there as well. So no, I don't agree there is some magic difference between video and text.

>Finally, you took the one example where the evidential basis is exactly there!

NO it's not. You saying it doesn't make it so. You're impugning a motive on Facebook that you have no evidential support for. But that's not the salient point in this discussion, because your opinion about the level of evidence that you feel you bring to the argument is immaterial to social media 'curation'. What matters is what the minimum-wage, 20-something intern that is making an editorial decision feels about your post.
Dude...

There were multiple audits in a ton of states. Every time, it came out that the results were fair.

You're going to need to come up with much more than that.
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

― George Orwell, Animal Farm
In order for Google to have sold it, there would have to be a buyer who then becomes the new owner. The new owner then owns the company and can, among other things, sell the company.
It's been pretty widely dissected and explained why he said and wrote all of that idiotic internet leetspeak in his "manifesto".

There is also a reason why many of these folks who finally decide to kill people also consume "alt-lite" content like Ben Shapiro / Jordan Peterson etc, it isn't a coincidence.
Regulating that and keeping people from spreading racist propaganda, or content that just exists to undermine democracy is fine in my book.
Facebook keeps its large-scale infrastructure hardware up and running
I think the key is not whether they'll have to divest current platforms, but if they can acquire whatever will be the next popular platform. If Zuckerberg sells Instagram, but can still buy the next platform, he'll always maintain his monopoly.
I wouldn't regard those downvotes as valid. There is a large and vocal group on this thread with no apparent regard for HN's culture. They appear to be from "out of town".
I shipped a package from Chicago to Baltimore last month. Based on tracking info, the USPS had it on a truck within hours. To Wichita. It made it through the distribution center there and back on a truck within another few hours, where it showed up in Washington DC 6 days later. And now I guess it's heading to Baltimore. Or at least I hope so.

My daughter sends books via media mail to a friend in suburban NYC. For basically pocket change, they get there in 3 days or so.
If only the virgin mary were contrary. Science has lost it's power. Someone will choose an interpretation that benefits themselves over the truth. It's normal. Too many tech people are coasting on the libertarian dream of the past.
This is a good argument. I wish the interviewer brought it up.
Yeah, I always end up pasting the link into a private browser window to bypass that.
It often does. You want it to, in many cases.
> independent Oculus can stagnate

My experience has been that technology is far more likely to stagnate at BigCo than SmallCo - especially if SmallCo's only source of revenue is said technology.
Will Green Hydrogen Save the Planet or Become a Costly Detour?
I think you might be dismissing that even in suburban California, things are much closer to suburban Texas.

California may seem like it's 100% different, but that's mostly because people only know San Francisco, LA, and the other coastal cities. CA has its other parts, too.
Bummer that I'd have to pay to read most of that.

Are the claims you listed actually supported with evidence? I don't know Georgia's laws, so maybe felons are allowed to vote under some circumstances.

How do you even get a ballot for someone who isn't registered? Also, could they have moved after casting their vote legitimately?

Votes from people who moved out of state before the election. When is "the election"? I hope and assume they mean "before mail in ballots could be requested and submitted" and not "before November 3rd".

And what is "proper" signature matching? Signature matching is tricky. Are they getting professionals to analyze the signatures? Probably not. I'm not sure some Joe Schmoe would be able to look at two of my signatures and confirm they match, so I'm not that interested in strict signature matching as a bar to clear.

Rest assured, that if these claims actually are true, I will be happy to see the issues resolved. But seeing as all of the claims so far have come up totally empty, I'm not holding my breath. Remember when Trump said that he had a TON of evidence that Obama wasn't born in this country? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.