skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not like "property damage" just means a few buildings get damaged in a vacuum. It was massive amounts of arson, civil unrest, injuries, at least 6 deaths. These things definitely terrorize people on a similar (if not greater) level. Considering people located near the blm/antifa riots also had to fear bombings. There were actual explosives going off, not just reports like at the capitol.
Did you write the reviews yourself?

Are the images/posters of the movies free to use? I'm afraid you will get a C&D letter soon.
Bingo! Censoring a site because of censorship (even if misguided in terms) is like a kid saying you can’t play kickball because you didn’t invite him to play soccer (futbol)
Bring an appeal to the ECJ or pay a few senators some money to get the CIA (USA's defacto sly foreign army) to kill some people.

Whichever costs less for them.
Northern Idaho politics are decidedly right wing, white supremacist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/america-by-the-numbers/episodes/epi...

https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/why-idahos-racist...

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/legacy-hate-spect...
> For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government.

Step back for a moment and ask yourself honestly: do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that there was even the slightest, faintest, remotest chance of the dude in the viking outfit overthrowing the US government?

It was a violent protest that got way out of hand, absolutely. There was never even the slightest chance of the government being overthrown though. It's like someone dropped a cigarette butt on the ground and people are leaping on the opportunity to call it attempted arson.
>Telling 150 million people to sit down and shut up because their party happened to lose an election is a really, really bad idea

How deep are you into things? foxnews crazy, oann crazy, thedonald crazy, or all the way to Q crazy? It's not too far to go back.

Your above statement has no basis in reality. If you really want me to take the time to describe why, I'll be glad to.
I think it is systemd's job to make sure it works for its users, even though that requires working around HW bugs. If RDRAND is so problematic and can be not used, why use it at all? Just abstain from using it, simplify the logic and solve this class of issues once and for all.
Online Event: AI PM Startup vs. Scale
We rate about 1000 news sources - from NYT, to wire services, down to niche sites like War On The Rocks. I mention that last one because it rates very highly in its area of focus: foreign policy, often in topics relating to war/defense. Indeed, because our algorithm emphasizes expertise rather than credibility you'll often see specialist sources outrank mainstream generalist sources.

As for best unbiased sources, here's a blog post that draws from our dataset: https://blog.thefactual.com/what-are-the-best-nonpartisan-ne...

There are also great sources on the left and right, namely:
https://blog.thefactual.com/what-are-the-most-credible-conse...
https://blog.thefactual.com/what-are-the-most-credible-liber...
Back in 2014 the lichess app would send your username/password in clear text :) will have to see if that's still the case...
This is how most natural monopolies are handled. The U.S. is a bit of an outlier in that regional communications is still private.
It's absolutely astounding that you can go on Twitch and see Grandmasters playing speed chess at pretty much any time of day.

I agree with other posters who've said that while Queen's Gambit may have sparked interest, it's streamers -- professional chess players or not -- who are keeping interest high.

I'm a big fan of chess, and it's awesome to see so many of my friends suddenly become interested in the game!
I meant seeing a big state taking control like russia did post ww2 (probably fueling the us/russia feud) but I only read in books.
Alternatively maybe we would have far more (and/or far more zealous) election conspiracy theorists had Fox not reported fairly. More importantly, I don't think an isolated event is going to bring anyone back from post-truth-land, whether they're Trump supporters or woke progressives. We need a society that consistently esteems institutions that pursue objectivity.
Reshaping arrays: How the NumPy reshape operation works
I understand you're emotional about it, and asking for clarification is 'disturbing' to you. I also don't like what happened and would love to figure out ways to ensure a better functioning society.

However, I think where we may differ is how we think about solutions to problems like this. I want solutions that are scalable, and that help maintain a society where a diversity of people can all thrive over the long-term. I don't believe emotional reasoning should be a strong factor in determining punishments for people, as it leads to bias and discrimination.

Most vocal people you see on the internet don't seem particularly interested in long-term/scalable solutions. It's not terribly surprising, we humans are very short-term oriented and tribal by nature. When we see members of the outgroup performing badly, we want to punish them. When members of our own ingroup perform badly, we are more likely to rationalize it away and be more charitable with the interpretation of what they've done.

I don't believe the 'punish the outgroup, forgive the ingroup' thinking is healthy for a functioning pluralistic society. The words you are using and the way you are framing things are signals to me that you may be fairly biased against your outgroup. That's why I was asking you to spell out exactly what rules should govern punishment in your mind.

The next step in critically thinking through your proposed rules is whether you would punish members of your ingroup for violating them, or if you'd add new caveats to ensure they were given some leniency. But that's just a rhetorical question given the nature of this forum.

Note: I am making no claims of equivalence between your outgroup and ingroup in terms of actions they've done. You also likely think I'm part of your outgroup for straying from the status quo by even posing such questions, and may feel inclined to use terms reserved for your outgroup. You'd be mistaken, but I understand the impulse.
> They’re insurrectionists, and being charged as such.

They are not yet being charged as such (and I’d be surprised if insurrection was a charge, though “seditious conspiracy” seems likely a fairly easy case to make).

Mostly, the charges are much simpler (which is unsurprising; its easy to survive a probable cause hearing for “unlawful entry to a restricted building or grounds”, it takes a lot more evidence for seditious conspiracy, treason, insurrection, conspiracy to impede or injure an officer of the united states, or any of the myriad of less simple but more serious crimes they might end up charged with as further investigation occurs.)
Right... but doesn't every serious desktop GUI framework already do that? They aren't drawing every glyph every time from the original curves, and where else would they store video data than... the video RAM.
As an individual, when your speech is banned, it's all the same whether it's by an authoritarian government or by private companies.
They don't exist. Full stop.

Before I started reading AOC's tweets, the right's view of her had seeped into my brain. I didn't know why, but I had a slightly negative view of her.

Once I actually read her views expressed in her tweets I was shocked how reasonable she was. In 100's of tweets I've never seen her say anything that I thought was even remotely radical.
Except these companies are defining truth in the world.

You said individuals make their own assessment based on the “evidence” - the problem here is that these companies serve up the “evidence”, so if these companies decide to only show you the “correct” evidence then that’s where they begin to define “truth”.

For an example, see Google Maps and Crimea in Ukraine vs Russia.
And?

Do you know how long I've sat and listened to minority groups complain about being backed into a corner and having no voice?

To my knowledge, none have ever gathered thousands of believers to attack the capitol in an attempt to thwart the implementation of the constitutional order.

Given the number of groups that are backed in a corner in the US, given the number of groups that have no voice in the US, those are tenuous excuses at best.

You want change? Do it the proper way like everyone else has to. Peaceful demonstrations that bring attention so that you can educate the population about your cause. Shortcuts like appealing to arms bring quick results but are doomed to failure long term.
Inversions are happening faster than ever. The red and blue tribes swap their positions in sync at this point.
CDPR also owns GOG, the only major PC storefront where everything is DRM Free, at least for single-player. You can download installers from your web browser and use them without any internet connection at all, or any "client" to speak of. And GOG has been getting more and more AAA titles—Prey, Quantum Break, and Horizon Zero Dawn are all available right now!

They also have all of the Batman Arkham games! Can you imagine if Warner Brothers released DRM-Free versions of the Batman movies? That would be practically unprecedented, and yet it's relatively common for video games, largely because GoG has been pushing for it.

It would really suck if GOG got caught up in the Cyberpunk fiasco.
> […] all the "protected classes" tend to come from the left wing ideologies.

You don’t know what the term “protected class” means, and you should probably stop using it.

“Woman” isn’t a protected class, “sex” is. “Christian” isn’t a protected class, “religion” is.
which should serve them as a huge wake up call
You seem to be new here. You might check the rules for Show HN and consider submitting this as a Show HN if it meets the rules.

https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
I just stared at a globe, and it’s possible, but not from a geostationary orbit.

Think about a hemisphere projected onto a 2d circle - you can see all points on the surface of the hemisphere on the projection.

Logically it must be possible to select a hemisphere, such that any two random points on a sphere lie on that hemisphere, and would thus be visible in the projection.

The only edge cases is two points that are diametrically opposite - i.e north and south pole, which would only both be visible at infinite distance.

Points nearly diametrically opposed would only be visible from extreme distance.

This doesn’t take into account inconvenient mountains, but they can easily be moved.
As a long-time observer of HN, I have noticed that many people resort to pedantry when attempting to respond to comments that they have no real way to argue with, but want to argue with them anyway. Whether the number is 150 or 75 million, it's slightly less than 1/2 of the voting public. Do you think it's a good idea to attempt to silence 40-45% of the voting public in a country as large as the United States?
LoL, like that's an option!

For north Idaho I'm sure that's the only option in town for high speed internet.
If it comes, enjoy the war. It's what you want, I think, and it's what you're going to get unless people like me can win the argument that we ought to turn back before its too late. I doubt we will. Your inability to even acknowledge what I am saying, instead of trying to prove that I am condemning your tribe unfairly, at the very least should be something you, I beg you, try to understand.

When cities burn, people loot, and innocent people are killed in violence, it unlocks doors for others to then walk through, particularly if those acts are argued as now being just given the right motive. This isn't an opinion, nor is it blame. It's an observation based upon history. At some point, we need to stop walking through doors and unlocking the next one for the other side to walk through. The only way that happens is through leadership or a recognition that the next door will be one too far for anyone to accept.
The problem with that of course is exactly the same as with Twitter: the press needs to a) show up in the first place, b) cover the story at all even if they do, and c) relay what was said without adding or removing context.

Which, just like any other private entity, if they want to not enable violence then they don't have to do any of those points. I.e. just like twitter.
Lets see some benchmarks.

I hope Intel can pull through. Nobody benefits if there are fewer options on the CPU front.
Since they have many videos I forgot the exact quote and don’t have the time to go through their YouTube channel at least not at the moment.

I will do better though. Chenk has wrote an article on denying the Armenian genocide. Why is he not de-platformed for that alone?
This reduces the role of the journalist to a mere collector of other people's words.

I grew up with a more expansive view of their role as the ideal. Are you saying that a journalist (or anyone, really) can't tell if it's raining outside? That their job is to act as a stenographer of the "it's raining" and the "it's dry" crowd, and leave it at that?
My impression is that most options are very illiquid, and I've gotten discouraged by the huge spreads. A few things have liquid options, but not interesting stuff. Just trying to buy and sell at the best available price seems very difficult when I see for example a bid/ask of $0/$5.
> We either have free speech or we don’t.

Perhaps one of the best things Americans could do is throw away demonstrably false dichotomies like this. You have defamation laws, you have copyright & IP law, contract law etc.

Freedom of expression is a right that is balanced against other types of rights and freedoms. No doubt the USA puts more weight on freedom of expression over other rights, but it's by no means the only setting that confers a functioning democracy.

It's entirely valid to discuss where the balance should sit. Indeed it's the _only_ way to discuss it rationally.
A better test is to use dieharder, see here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/18184#issuecomment...
"Northern Idaho" used to be shorthand for "extreme right wing" due to it being the location of the headquarters of the Aryan Nations and location of the Ruby Ridge standoff. Those references are over twenty years old now, so no idea how much that ideology survives there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
Once you have enough liquidity that the markets function (i.e. the stuff of actual value to people doesn't get jammed up) it seem the marginal utility of adding liquidity is near zero.

Have I missed something?
It doesn't matter who makes the content. Take for example, the New Yorker, which curates short stories and poetry not written by their own authors/editors. If they were to publish something inciting violence or otherwise illegal/immoral, they can't just throw their hands in the air and say "it wasn't me!", legally nor socially.

Besides, I'm talking mostly on a social aspect rather than a legal one. I'm not a lawyer. But too often do we give Facebook a pass since it doesn't make the content, it only curates it. The curation is automated at a massive scale by AIs, and is done for each user, every day, but it is still undeniably curation.

An example of a platform is if the user does their own curation. E.g. old Instagram. You got everything posted by everyone you follow, in chronological order. Now Instagram will change the feed order and time-delay/shadowban posts, making it, in my view, a publisher. Your SMS example is a platform since you chose to have your SMS's sorted by time.
> If a company doesn't want to distribute a certain type of content (whether it's for political reasons or because they genuinely think it's better for society that some voices aren't heard), they're under no obligation to do so.

I thought ISPs were classified as common carriers and thus are obligated? Or are we saying we _don't_ want net neutrality now?
That’s not the case for states with Net Neutrality laws, according to the article. For the state of Washington, this move is illegal.
> this is the year that decentralized social media will become mainstream

I really hope you're right, but I am also very skeptical. For every centralized platform that a community is cut off from, another centralized platform opens to accept them.

And then you have decentralized platforms that specifically build in censorship in the stupidest places [0] in an effort to stave off "rightoids." It seems most of the people building the decentralized platforms aren't actually interested in the merits of open communication or free thought, but rather pushing their inconsistent, amorphous identity politics bullshit down everyone's throats (and I'm saying this as a communist). They bring their ruling-class-approved "us vs them" mentality into the platforms they are building and try to force participants to "bend the knee" or be banished. Sure, you can run your own instance, but why would you on a platform where you're not sure where you stand? Decentralized social media platforms will need to exercise a bit more tolerance before they see mass adoption.

I'm excited for things like Holochain though, which might help to turn everything on its head.

[0]: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/816
How is that censorship? It's a private company, they should be free to choose what kind of content they want to provide.
Impeachment also strips him of SOME of the generous privileges ex-presidents receive such as "pension, security detail, and travel allowance."

He does not deserve any of those privileges.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impeached-president-lose-b...
Lenovo unveils new ThinkPads at CES with 16:10 displays
LawOfficer.com says the cause of death is not yet known, at least not publicly known.[1] It seems that he died of a "medical condition", and not having his skull crushed as at least one person on Twitter has stated.

1. https://www.lawofficer.com/family-of-fallen-capitol-police-o...
They supported the French king against violent revolutionaries who executed him, imposed arbitrary cultural changes such as abandoning the calendar, and undertook a series of mass executions and purges until they were finally brought under control by Napoleon.
It's quite generous to attribute productivity to people who call their ISP to get a website blocked that they could just stop using.
There are very credible linguists who theorize that there’s a universal human grammar and language foundation. It’s not a stretch to think that if they’re right about humans, the theory may apply to other life with language which we haven’t encountered yet.

If that’s the case, the property you’re describing belongs to abstract thought and language generally, of which mathematics is a subset.
I mostly doubt that without the underlying current system companies will act the same way. In this case, I doubt they'd all have as much of a push to ban the same people at the same time example.
Your argument would hold more weight if you could show us how to deescalate one person down from "Hang Mike Pence" to "ok yeah I was wrong actually Biden won"; until then, the question is back on you - how do you even deescalate with folks in that "never concede" mindset?

You also have to ask yourself, even if deescalation was possible, at what point do you stop reasoning with people and lay down boundaries? Had the insurrectionists managed to, as some of them were ostensibly prepared for, physically harm elected representatives or the VP, then would you say, I understand this might even radicalize you, but I have to stop you? Or even in the face of exactions would you say, ooh, no, we better not antagonize these people, tech should continue giving them support to organize a violent uprising, etc.?

If your answer is "do nothing" then ask yourself what would cause you to act...
"BiG tEcH" People only use this term when they're mad that they can't call for the hanging of American citizens or the burning down of our government.

Amazon, Twitter, FB, Apple, Google—none of them have to tolerate calling for murder and destruction and they aren't going to risk liability by ignoring it and letting people come to harm. If you feel like not being able to call for lynchings of left leaning Americans is curtailing your speech then you need to reflect on why you want Americans dead so badly.
I'd like to understand better someone who is commenting on this site, or this thread, and raising the question of "How can we possibly define/moderate/ban what is hate speech and what isn't?"

The implication is because this is impossible, then we shouldn't even bother, because it's a slippery slope, and leads to all sorts of repressive behaviour.

If you believe this position, I have some follow-up questions for my own curiosity:

1) Is it not true that we already have defined lines that we universally agree cannot be breached? Child pornography. Explicitly soliciting accomplices for murder. Explicitly organizing plans for murder.

2) If lines in the sand have already been defined, why not redefine them if there is new information available in our society? Please answer me without a "slippery slope" argument. That is abstract and hypothetical. Let's deal with concrete scenarios.
If a significant part of those types was just something like `std::collections::` or similar then I'm not sure I see the problem.

Suggestions should probably trim redundant prefixes like that, but recognizing standard library namespaces shouldn't be a big obstacle to understanding either.
FTA - way down toward the bottom:

>In a phone call with KREM, the owner of the company, Brett Fink, again said the websites would only be blocked for customers who asked.

>"We've had customers asked to be blocked by it. That is what the email was about, so no we are not blocking anybody, only the ones that have asked for it," Fink said.

So the entire premise of the article up to that point, as well as the article's subtitle are based on a non-event.

-- edited for formatting
Yeah, normally I see it written as 20-20 or 20/20, never 2020. That's why I thought it was meant to be read both ways. Pretty good, I think.
:) Political opinions are more well-defined? At least political opinions are in realm of reality.
> why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them?

Because there isn't a free market, but a regulated market and there is a widespread perception (on both the left and the right) that the regulations are tilted in favor of the establishment and oligarchs, and against normal people, workers, consumers, and taxpayers.

Furthermore when there was protests which were marred by violence in 2020 the platforms were supportive of the protestors and continued to permit them to organize.

> what is the rationale for squaring this circle

If we want a free market, lets have a free market. If we want regulations, lets let those regulations reflect perspectives from both sides of the aisle. A regulated market for me, and a free market for thee, is not acceptable.
I agree a private business may do what they will within the bounds of our laws, so yes, but my framework for how I handle this would have ISPs regulated as natural monpoly which would make them a utility without that choice and that takes care of your concern. In their current state, however, you would not be wrong even if I wouldn't like it.
You can vote in local elections, you can vote for a representative for congress, you can vote for a representative for senate, you can vote for local propositions.

What is your expectation? What do you mean by "voice"?