skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Most unions I suspect already have some form of within-union democracy. The small union I'm a member of works on a sort of federation basis, broken up by physical location. So members of District 26 vote for a District 26 rep, who goes to a meeting of the union leadership and then votes there.

In this way, representatives are not exclusively associated with job classifications (e.g., all the programmers vote for programmer reps, the accountants for accounting reps, etc.) but are instead only loosely associated with classification. So one rep mostly, but not exclusively, represents the accountants, but also might represent the secretary in the same office.

I think it's an okay system, and I'm sure different intra-union democratic structures have been studied, but to an extent I think you have the same problems as with local elections: it's difficult to get people to be informed and care, absent some huge community-wide issue. What was the difference between Rep A and Rep B in the last election? Who knows?
SLA andamp; Uptime calculator: How much downtime corresponds to 99.9 % uptime
i havent seen his social media posts. what did they say?
These people already have a persecution complex, they shouldn't be allowed to proliferate because of "what ifs." They've already shown what they can do, unchecked.

Shutting down Parler and others like them is for the greater good.

EDIT: Also, Amazon told them to moderate their content or get booted. Parler didn't do so, got booted.
Ask HN: What do you think of my strategy to change my field of work?
I am a software engineer(had been desk junkie for too long), introvert and English is not my first language. But I have given few presentations in my career to somewhere around 5 to 50 people. And I am not that good at general communication and presentation.

I have lot of ideas that pop-up in my head. I want to do a startup with one of these ideas. I try to implement them and then realise that I lack three other very important skill-sets that a startup founder requires: marketing, sales and finance(at least in the initial stages of the startup). It is not important to just build things. One should be able to market it, sell it and manage the finances. Finance I will be able to manage, but marketing and sales requires going out(or even online) and talking to people, negotiating etc. These are the skills that I lack to some extent.

So here is what I was thinking. I should take an entry-level job at an organisation that requires talking to people on a regular basis. And recently I stumbled across an entry-level job that requires talking to people(from various companies, labs and R&D divisions) across the world and collecting information from them and then presenting it to internal and external stakeholders for business viability.

If I take this job, my whole career trajectory will change. Also, as this job is entry level the salary is very low(more than 50% pay cut).

I am thinking of going for it(I have not yet applied). But what do you think, does this strategy make sense?
Most chat servers simply know who contacts whom. This is an inherent problem (or strategic advantage) in being a chat server. Signal tries to hide the information from themselves by using Intel SGX. So, while SGX may not be perfect, its better than nothing.
> but we can hijack it to instead scan the screen for URLs and open the browser

For comparison, rxvt-unicode has perl utils for mouse-less URL selection [1]. Since it's operating within the terminal, scrollback is also available for selection (not just the currently visible screen).

After invoking the selection mode, it's as easy as using j/k to choose the URL and Enter to open or y to yank to clipboard. Installed on Arch with the `urxvt-perls` package.

[1] https://github.com/johntyree/urxvt-perls
> I wonder if decentralized/p2p technologies will see more adoption by the radical right for this reason.

It seems as though there is in inverse relationship between ease of use and centralization (obviously). As communication becomes decentralized, the ability to accrue a large audience becomes more difficult. This supports the rise of ideas that can gain widespread support on their merit, as opposed to gaining widespread support via having a mass audience to start with.

To illustrate: on one side, we have a centralized extreme: Twitter (or Reddit, or Facebook). On the other side we have a decentralized extreme: spoken word. Which is easier to radicalize a country with?

If extremists move to decentralized or p2p alternatives to social media, they will shrink in the long run, letting the fringe ideas remain on the fringe.

If all social media went the way of decentralization, we would see far less extremism in general, simply because most people wouldn't go looking for it and it's pretty hard to spread extremist ideas in a one-on-one conversation.
> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients

I don't agree with that assessment. If Google employees have a strong opposition to working with, say, federal agencies to share data they've gathered on users, then I think it makes perfect sense for them bring that concern to the table.

Honestly, I don't see why a union shouldn't have the ability to bargain anything it wants to try and bargain. I'm open to someone changing my mind on that.
Incorrect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html
Shush! Don't tell them about the little hill! It's only one of them on the other side anyways, we can ignore it... here we go, MTL only has 4 universities now /s

Quebec is weird, true, but I tend to think of the Montreal Metropolitan Area as some sort of semi independant micro state
It's likely there are microphones in Echo that even an electronics expert can't "recognize" as a microphone. Any object that is flimsy and can 'vibrate' due to sound, can have it's position used to alter an electrical signal, and anything monitoring that signal can convert the signal easily back into sound. Even a non-data carrying wire with current can do this.
I saw a great analogy on Twitter:
Imagine Twitter as the anti-homosexual cake shop and Q-Anon/Trump/Radical Right as the couple who want a cake for their gay wedding.
I suspect most Fords sold in the EU are manufactured in the EU or its former member state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_of_Europe
Right. Never saw a benefit in switching to the most recent version. Still very satisfied with Qt 4.8 and 5.4.

Apparently they closed the LTS branch for community contributions which is reasonable because otherwise the community would contribute to a version which would only be accessible to other community members a year later.
> Not all dems.

I know that we're not supposed to be snarky here at HN, but I'm failing to see how #NotAllDems is a sensible argument. Especially given President-Elect Biden's track record on this particular issue, and Vice-President-Elect Harris' history as a "hardline", "tough on crime" prosecutor.
> It is a low-cost, low tech way to verify that the camera is not picking up usable images.

It is definitely not low cost.

In the hardware business, we count pennies. We count fractions of pennies with the costs of various components.

A shutter means at least one extra mechanical part, and a more complicated housing and increased assembly time at the factory.

You might look at a piece of plastic and think it is only a few pennies of plastic. But by the time you get it integrated into the product, and shipped out to consumers, it can add up to a dollar of cost. That really eats into the profits of low-margin hardware.

Only if enough consumers care about hardware shutters does it make business sense to include it. If most don't, and it is not a part of their buying decision making, then you're just throwing away money. Especially if it leads to increased post-sales tech support costs: ("My camera doesn't work! Is the shutter closed? Oh it is!").

Note that this is not an argument not to have hardware shutters. They are a good thing. But they come at a significant (to the final price) cost.
"Freedom of the press belongs primarily to him who owns one."

--A.J. Liebling, quoted from memory.
> Several representatives were successfully intimidated into voting

This is a fake fact. More republicans said they were going to vote against certifying the electoral votes before the riots. Then they changed their minds; the rioters had the opposite effect to what they wanted.
I hear your argument. However there is a lot of grey area when it comes to defining "shitty", and some business have far too much power over our everyday life. For instance imagine if financial institutions would ban you for your political views (let's say you support very tight regulation of credit card companies and are vocal about it), good luck functioning in a modern society without credit cards.
Horses for courses. If I had to lug it through airports everyday, I'd want the lightest laptop I could possibly live with.

Although I don't really care about how thin it is, per se. Weight is what matters.
I believe that once any social media site gets big enough people with radical and violent views show up. It's unavoidable. Some of them are just trolls and troublemakers. The real question becomes how they deal with those people. Parler already had a moderation policy in-place, but to be fair they are a growing company that experienced an absolute surge of new users. Twitter is a fully mature company with much more moderation in place. Even still, you can find a ton of calls for violence on Twitter by blue checkmark people and nothing ever seems to come from that.

Just because radical things are posted on your website doesn't mean all the discourse on the site is bad and your site should be deplatformed. We already apply that standard to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and others.

As a side note, I've heard that the people who actually stormed the Capitol Building (not just holding signs outside of it, which is perfectly fine) used Facebook to coordinate and not Parler.
It kinda already is right? Many of their defense contracts end up being practically blank checks.
> What has been censored effectively?

>As far as I've been aware, legal censorship has never worked.

If you hold "worked" to the impossible standard of "completely eradicated its target" then no, just as basically no policy or initiative has ever "worked." Hell, polio still exists![0] By the much more reasonable standard of "suppressed the dissemination and popularization of its target" then there are a plethora of examples:

- Libel and slander laws successfully limit outright lies reported by the media.

- Various governments censor and punish criticism of themselves or specific officials.

- Copyright law successfully limits propagation of media.

- Certain content - typically sexual or graphically violent - cannot legally be broadcast.

- You are legally barred from lying about, for example, the ingredients of a product you produce or its efficacy.

- State secrets are heavily censored, and those who circumvent this censorship are heavily punished.

Not to mention individual cases of censorship, such as whether a man may publish his own autobiography.[1] That particular case was eventually decided in his favor, but there was no guarantee of that.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/10/30/9290806...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/20/concert-pianis...
It's been 226 days since I sent my laptop (p51s) to Lenovo for warranty repair for a HDD controller failure. They lost the laptop, and have continually told me they were going to call me back to rectify the matter, and have never done so.

Never buy Lenovo unless you're willing to lose your machine without recourse.
I'm actually a great fan of using emoji to spice up terminal output. Most of these would be fixed width too, isn't it? I know there are wide emoji, but most times I see them around one char wide.
It was targeted at specific congressmen iirc, wasn’t Kentucky (McConnell?) targeted through a bourbon tariff?
Yeah, if what you're doing means that no private business wants to do business with you then the bar to doing what you're doing is higher. Fine by me.
I personally would be very angry if their ISP refused them access, because I believe the internet should be a public utility that everyone can use and "you can still yell on the public square" wouldn't be a good faith argument.

But I don't feel the same way about AWS, because they are not as critical as an ISP would be. Nothing is stopping Parler from plugging in and managing their own servers. I see AWS as a convenience, and as such I don't think anyone is entitled to it.

As a side note: I would like to take a minute to remind the youngsters that no one owes them a revolution. If you want to go fight against the status quo, you should really have a plan for when the status quo fights back.
Covid-19 Took a Bite from U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2020
I thought that moxie was hostile against forks and said that he would not allow them to use his own servers?
It's not so much the "refused to take down" anything, the community was doing exactly what site intended. The problem is that community started planning violence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/07/capitol...
You need to rely on the net as a whole - which allows for multiple hosts and carriers and a lot of flexibility between them.
Except, of course, he still has the biggest bully pulpit in the nation and could hold a press conference or rally whenever he wanted. Of all the people butt-hurt about being deplatformed the president has no leg to stand on being mad about it.
I cannot agree more. In my home as long as I live I refuse to live with devices like this. And yes, I am that guy who keeps laptops / phones in a Faraday box (a cool project I completed in quarantine) while not in use haha. My friends actually really like the novelty of putting their phone / devices into the box when they come over - even if they make fun of me for it.
The EU subsidized Airbus for decades to enable it to compete with Boeing. China does the same with many of their industries. Japan and Korea did the same before them. Every country has an interest in having strong industry.
Draw with Noise
I use a p50 series thinkpad for work and it's quite good. The keyboard layout isn't my favorite, but otherwise I'm a fan.
On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or not we agree with them?

That has always been the history of media, see Hearst, Murdoch, Mercer, etc. The democracy of the early Internet was the exception from billionaires being in charge, not the norm.

Hearst used to be the voice of print media for decades.

The situation in radio is the same as it is on the internet: a few publicly-owned companies own a supermajority of the FM airwaves. If you wonder why you can change the station and hear the same song simultaneously on 5 different stations, it's because they're all owned by the same company.

In TV, for most of the past 2 decades, conservative billionaires have owned more than 75% of the public TV stations in the U.S. and Australia, and have been using that bully pulpit on behalf of conservatives during that time. Murdoch especially was instrumental in providing Trump (and other extremist candidates like Cruz) thousands of hours of free coverage during the 2016 campaign. The ownership groups would regularly interfere with local media and demand they either air or avoid topics as directed by ownership. Where was conservative outrage over billionaires deciding speech during this time?
The big dig is likely to be around for 200+ years. It’s exactly the kind of useful government spending everyone wants and nobody wants to pay for.

Could efficiency improve? Yes! But note that waste was private companies padding out the contract not government employees. People want to outsource government functions, blame government when that fails, and use it to justify increased outsourcing. Clearly there is a failure in that logical reasoning.
How was it different from Facebook? Plenty of hate there, for months, why aren't they shutdown?

Just listen to the Parler executives account of what happened. Contrary to all the nonsense being spewed by ideologues, Parler did have a moderation policy that prohibited incitement to violence, and they did enforce it, but it was neither perfect nor instantaneous (since, by deliberate choice, only humans were involved). They also complied to the requests from the three tech titans, but of course that did not matter, their fate was sealed before the first letter was sent.

This is a moment of astonishing hypocrisy and terrible abuse of power. Silicon Valley has proven to half of America that the system is rigged beyond recourse, and for a number of those Americans that might be the straw that breaks the camels back, leading them into radicalization and terrorism. It would be very wise for all of us in tech, in any position of influence, to urge calm and dialogue and to provide space for all speech that is not urging violence. We are not children to throw away our country because of a single deranged fool. We need to show to the country that tech is not an instrument available to only those of a certain ideological bent and that we can talk and sort out our differences without violence or repression.
I think the two things (open source servers and E2EE) dovetail together.

If the E2EE situation is poor, what is happening on the backend with your data becomes more relevant.
Reading the actual book that this video is based on, those pushing the "Strong Towns" theme are pretty agnostic to free markets, so it's kind of besides the point. The point is - we spend $X/year on infrastructure, but people only seem to think that infrastructure is worth <$X/year, so there will forever be a deficit.

The Strong Town books also discusses what happened with a lack of regulation throughout almost all of human history: everyone lived in rural areas to work a farm, or else lived and worked in dense urban areas. American suburbia happened in large part not due to a lack of regulation at the top, but federal money being spent on roads, highways and infrastructure at the top.
This is EPIC
This board has four 2.5G ports, not four 10G ports, so the 16G bandwidth for four PCie 2.0 lanes is more than enough.
Especially because those of us who aren't already initiated have no idea who the hell the parent is talking about.
You write like someone who's a cynic.
Same here. I got started with ledger but found it too tedious to log every expense and didn’t really see any benefit. I already know I spend too much on eating out but it doesn’t affect my net worth in any significant way so I continue doing it. Schwab is able to tie in your other accounts and give you a big picture of your net worth.
See also Facebook in Myanmar:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
They believed they were properly mobilized. They believed the President would walk with them to the Capitol, because he said he would walk with them to the Capitol, after organizing a rally around the slogan "Stop the Steal" on the day they were counting votes.

This is clear evidence "insurrection" according to Sen. Mitt Romney and others.[1]

Here is a small sample of the chatter leading up to the 6th.[2]

If the police stop a truck full of weapons and people with written plans to murder someone, but that someone has more guards and ammunition, it's still attempted murder.

If it is "hyperbolic" to say it was a coup attempt when a group of people publicly stated they wanted a coup, found their way to DC, started a riot, broke into the US Capitol, and beat a cop to death, I guess I'm just hyperbolic.

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gNOdcT...

[2] https://i.redd.it/aqdl9s2pfua61.png
One thing I have found interesting about this concept is lets say I take all the parts and put them back together. Now I have 2 things. Which one is the 'thing'? Clearly both are and are not.

It is a weird quirk of some logic items. They can be both true and false at the same time. Such as things 'this statement is false' which is both true/false at the same time. Is one such example of that. However, sometimes it is clear our test is lacking. With the 'ship' you could say as soon as you switched out anything it was no longer the original thing. What happened to the original thing? Well it went to the same place as when I created it. Which creates its own set of questions.
Isn’t the solution pretty simple? Make platforms choose, either only remove illegal material, or be regulated as a publisher. Would take care of calls to violence and freedom of speech.
This is action taken because AWS's customer (Parler) specifically did not take that action. Since the raison d'etre for Parler is to host content not acceptable to mainstream social media sites, it seems reasonable to assume they won't in good faith moderate their content.
> somebody else's platform

My concern is how far down "somebody else's platform" goes. Twitter bans Trump: they're a platform, they can ban whoever they want. AWS bans Parler: they're a platform, they can ban whoever they want. Verizon is an ISP... are they a platform? Can they ban whoever they want? GoDaddy is a domain registrar. Are they a platform? Can they ban whoever they want?
NYC Paid NBA Star Millions After NYPD Officer His Leg. Officer Paid Little Price
You do understand the difference between opinion journalism and news reporting?
Step back for a moment and ask yourself honestly: do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that Trump and his supporters were not trying to keep him in power when he had clearly lost the election?

That was their clear goal. It has been for months, and Trump himself has been saying as much in no uncertain terms. They were looking to intimidate, possible kidnap or kill, members of congress and the Vice President in order to prevent the results of the election from being confirmed.

It's easy to get political fatigue in the current climate, I understand the knee-jerk impulse to assume "hey, you're probably overreacting about this political issue". But some things really are a big deal. Like overturning an election.
Okay, thank you for the warning. I'll refrain from politics on here.
There are state and federal dollars that are used by these municipalities to widen their roads and such. It is not something that happened without coordination. A federal policy in which 10x more money is available for roads vs transit is an incentive for more of the same.
Most of those will have been made in the EU though
Would've been nice to see something about this in the article
That's not what it sounded like to me. It sounded like they were putting the blame for hazardous actions of others on the media (of an all-encompassing scope) for discussing the hazardous actions being committed.

Which to me seems like slinging jargon rather than registering any kind of context. To me, it sounds like a misreading of McLuhan more than anything. In fact, McLuhan's point was exactly that kind of misunderstanding and misreading should be avoided by not taking the context for granted.
Aren't you fine if you stay on the latest release? LTS releases are good for industrial or commercial applications were you need to rock solid stability... and should be paying to support development. For end users latest release should be fine.

The way I see it you either pay for the library through money or by constantly moving forward with your APIs and doing updates to work with the latest version. If you are anchored to an old version and not paying, you are deadweight. While I'm not clear on the details of Qt's plan, but in the JDK space it makes perfect sense where you have a large contingent of vocal non-contributing that holds back large libraries for updating which slows the evolution of the platform.
I have not found it to be the case, one of my displays lasted 7 years and still works, the other gave out in 3, both had 1 year warfanty. Dell and asus respectively.
> All Qt 5 versions are now LTS, including the latest.

Source?
First paragraph and we're already at Nazis. Pass