skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're over-thinking it. "Protected" just means physical protection is provided. E.g. right now a lot of the supposedly separated bike lanes near me in Manhattan aren't protected in any meaningful way, so you often see cars illegally parked in them and sometimes even driving in them (!). Protection is as simple as physical curbs and other barriers that prevent vehicles from being able to get into the bike lanes. That's protection. Intersections actually do tend to be protected the most because they have started building some curbs at corners as pedestrian refuges between the bike and vehicle lanes, which have the side-effect of keeping cars out.
/r/moderatepolitics is pretty reasonable though the idea of "moderate" is more about speech than views.
A Major ReviewMeta Update: Why I’m Stepping Away and Seeking a Successor
Are these platforms prohibited from removing unionization and strike organization activities? My fear is that the labor movement (which is just starting to make significant headway in some of these companies) will be the next targets. If the companies do not have to pay to host hateful content, are there legal protections for labor which may be seen as the next major threat by these companies?
There is certainly an argument for preventing unsolicited messages being received from unknown users, but rarely do people value a spam filter which prevents them from sending messages to people. (I suppose there are some corporate filters which try to prevent accidental sending of sensitive information to unauthorised recipients, but that's not the "feature" we are talking about here).

It is perfectly reasonable for a user to want to DM someone on an instance that has different moderation policies from their own, and it is equally reasonable to want to receive replies to those DMs.

If the specifications or implementations don't allow that, then I suppose it has to be justified by saying that the DMs could be used for sharing copyright infringing material (or worse), and admins don't want to run the legal risk of hosting that on their servers. Legally, though, that doesn't seem any different to operating a mail server, which don't typically have Content ID matching systems on them. Perhaps the implementation of end-to-end encrypted DMs would assuage some of these concerns a little.
> an espresso machine ... performs twice as well as an equivalent device from 50 years ago

This is a terrible example.

How coffee is made has not changed much, so machines don’t need to change much. New hardware trends towards more plastic, more logic boards and at the worst end of the scale, more proprietary parts, including the actual coffee.

I have repaired and built up several 25+ year old espresso machines and grinders, and currently run a 37 year old grinder and a 23 year old espresso machine.

Older machines are easier to service, easy to get parts for and nice to work on. The quality of the coffee is hard to beat and I would need to pay around US$3k for a new version of the machine, where the old one is generally around US$250.

Often the changes over time are few (eg La Cimbali Junior). Brands like La Marzocco, La Cimbali, Rancilio and Mazzer have a lot of great machines going back a very long time. Electric parts often connect with spades or screws, there is documentation and parts are easily ordered and you can usually talk to someone at the supply end about difficult repairs.

New coffee machines at the lower end of the price scale are mostly just disposable crap, and make bad coffee. They are not cheaper over their lifetime.
I get that it is a kind of contradiction to claim being about free-speech, but to see their point, when free=speech and they as the primary advocates for free-speech are under clear and direct and persistent and unrelenting assault of their speech and thought, I can see how they would take on practical positions to protect their community from infiltrators and subversives as they are struggling to survive under relentless abuse of power.

What you should realize, and this is a general fact, is that when any group is withering under constant barrage and assault by what is really objectively an evil agenda of oppression (freedom of expression is in fact a human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), regardless of what you believe or say, they do not have the luxury of high moral consistency while facing free-speech eradication by an evil regime hell bent on controlling all aspects of humanity.

And kid yourself not, what the tech companies are doing to suppress free speech is not only purely and objectively evil, it is a threat to the US Constitution, which is the lynchpin and capstone for freedom and liberties all over the world too. If the American Constitution/values of free speech falter as they seem to be, I pity all the poor souls around the world who have lived under an umbrella of the US Constitution who will suffer immensely more and in deafening silence of globe dominating regime censorship.

There will be no people to take up the cause, e.g., of the Uighurs if the US regime wants to make nice with the Chinese regime for whatever reason. There will be no reporting of atrocities or even knowledge of the lies that justified the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis defending their hime against an evil invasion. There will be what the party wants … ney, demands you believe. Please see the book 1984 for reference. Many say they have read it, I seriously wonder if that is true.
All Im going to say is that quite a few heavyweights disagree with you both on the tech and investing front. I disagree with you as well. I think btc is a store of value. At the end of the day its going to be up to the individual.
The claim on contract violation is probably their strongest claim. Or probably would be were the exhibit of the contract offered not this: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...

To be fair, that does look more like a mistake--the HTML-to-PDF conversion appears to truncate a decent amount of text per page.

Ooh, just noticed, the contract also has this gem:

> Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify.

Which tosses out any claims of contract violation because you agreed to arbitrate it first!
Most providers also don't allow ISIS on their platforms. Another known terror-sponsoring organization. For a long time now. And yet I don't see people tying themselves into free speech knots over ISIS getting deplatformed. I wonder why that is?
> > Free speech doesn’t apply to non-government resources

> Of course it does!

Well, it does in that free speech is exactly the liberty of owners of non-government resources to choose how to control their use in expressing, relaying, and amplifying speech.

But “free speech” doesn’t provide any entitlement for any other party against the interests of the owners of non-government resources.
There's this article about using small containers: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/05/ditch-the-batterie...

But it's not talking about using cheap things like plastic bottles. I'd be interested in reading the article you're talking about. It's hard to find much about CAES online because it's easy to run into the crazy people that think they're going to get free energy out of it or something.
All of them: Require your phone number to work, and ask for your full address book.

Asking repeatedly for information that is not necessary is a red flag. It is suspicious, to say the least, that Signal is not censored from Apple’s Appstore.
I wish that they would have chosen a different name when switching from Riot to Element because I am just starting to getting used to it. But it is still my #1 option.
I don't know why but I find it vey difficult to sympathize with parler. as a developer I was about to shun AWS because of their role as a infrastructure provider of the web, but even before the news came out and it was just rumors that employees were pushing for the removal. people on the platforms were calling for the bombing of server locations and the killing of the employees. At what point do we say its enough?
Why does this keep happening? RDRAND was broken in Ryzen 3xxx[1] and Jaguar/Puma[2] too.

[1] - https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/10/how-a-months-old-amd...

[2] - https://linuxreviews.org/RDRAND_stops_returning_random_value...
The First Amendment, obviously, doesn't address TV or the internet but your statement "any private company has the freedom to decide what not to host" is false, television stations must adhere to the "equal time doctrine" and allot broadcasting time (the equivalent of hosting) to political candidates regardless of party affiliation or agenda. We also had a "fairness doctrine", the reinstatement of which had the support of many of today's prominent Democratic leaders (Pelosi, Durbin, Kerry).

Point is, the government has, multiple times, recognized the power of "big media" to suppress political speech, and acted to regulate that power.
I pushed back in one direction, and now I'll push back in the other.

I do not think "literally millions" do. That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I am saddened by extremists like this, on all sides.

I want to win a tough but fair political fight, and I think that's what almost everyone in America wants, too. I'm sorry some people think 60 court cases were simultaneously wrongly decided, but I don't feel sympathy for anyone who thinks the next step is to storm the Capitol.
Agree if that was your point it’s well made.
What is happening here is interesting. Almost like facebook messenger has lost its network effects. Its so easy to install Signal and get setup, and there is a compelling reason to leave Facebook's ecosystem. I previously assumed the network effects were so strong no one could leave Facebook without being a hermit. It turns out people who actually want to contact me will actually bother to install Signal and join me.
It seems clear that interests can be very aligned where users are paying for their product. It is only when services are "free" where alignment is an issue.
> GAFA

Google Apple Facebook Amazon for those unaware
You reap what you sow. Conservatives are normally champions of corporate freedom, they never had a problem with the extreme bias on cable news or talk radio, but now that big tech companies have eclipsed the platforms they dominate they cry foul. AWS isn't an ISP, but if conservatives hadn't destroyed net neutrality they might have a legal leg to stand on when ISPs inevitably refuse to give them a business contract so that they might house their own servers. I think they deserve this outcome for being persistent bad faith actors in this regard, but I'd be happy to see a restoration of net neutrality now that conservatives are selfishly motivated to support it.
Germany is still far superior to the US here. IIRC bike mode share in Germany is like 10%, whereas in the US it's under 1%.

I'm in Munich and agree that it's not Netherlands-level infrastructure, but it still blows basically anywhere in the US out of the water.
> You can always use text, signal, etc if you want to communicate with your group.

Does Signal run on AWS? If I can shut you down at the cloud level then I'm not sure these options will be available in the future. Someone is going to coordinate a protest/riot on Signal, screenshots will leak, then what happens?
Aaron inspired me so much with his clear ethos in his heart.

I could feel his pain in his blog writing so clearly, almost as if he could feel the pain of the whole world and it crushed him.
I have little hope that the legal system will be adapted to the current technocratic society we currently live in given that the average age of someone in Congress is 58 and in the Senate it's 62. That said, if they ever get around to it, they should investigate "shadow banning." The ability to silence people without any notification or even any way for the effected party to prove it is pretty insidious and should have some regulation behind it. They can effectively skirt any public scrutiny and control the entire discourse of a country.
I think though that perspective is super limited on whose family this could save.
Take it for all it's worth!
Thanks for those trim settings, useful!

I'll swap you for these. I don't want any automatic opening of URLs, but I do want to make it easier to copy-paste them:

xterm*on3Clicks: regex [^ ''""()<>$+]*
xterm*on4Clicks: line
xterm*on5Clicks: group
Yes, you'd need to handle the antenna issue. As far as engineering problems go though that's not a particularly hard challenge. Phones and laptops with metal cases have no problem with this despite a lack of external antennas.
I read that article you linked but don't see where it says Parler refused to remove those posts. I can't check whether those posts still exist since Amazon took the whole site down.
>it seems clear after January 6th that a part of what was promoted on Parler was both imminent and lawless.

Assuming the people planning on Parler were some of the same people who stormed the Capitol then yes, absolutely. With the benefit of hindsight, this was incitement, potentially criminal.

Now the tricky part: from Parler's perspective, content that at one minute is "free speech" is suddenly illegal, or at the very least ToS breaking, in a matter of hours. Were they given a reasonable amount of time to remove the content (and what good would that even do, after the fact)? Did Amazon make Parler a political target, and arbitrarily apply a rule to them that they did not apply to other customers (Twitter)? Likely, imho. Does any of it even matter if "businesses can do what they want"?
Mac Firefox users: selectively open Google Meet links on Chrome with finicky
I agree. Note that there are many vaccines and some of them use live virus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Authorized_an... , but IIUC France will use the Pfizer that is a mRNA vaccine.

One thing that I heard too many times [here in Argentina] is that the vaccine will modify your DNA. It's false. I don't understand how people thought that, but the press coverage sometimes in very confusing.
The main thing I'm afraid of is that there will be a renewed push to make encryption illegal. Optimistically, I think the actions of these tech companies might help avoid that - if they had done nothing, it would be easier for politicians to demand the ability to take matters in to their own hands.
While I absolutely agree with the idea that every social media has extremes, I completely disagree with the end conclusions.

Other social media services do not actively shape the debate through intense political moderation. There's no "Post tsar" the validates the political health of things that people host.

Meanwhile on Parler...

https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506

https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1346565749977051136

It's literally, a far right wing propaganda machine and any other interpretation of this is misinformed.
Just like the future I've pictured five years ago: if you aren't woke compliant, you get to be shut down.
systemd: we'll fork our own rdrand
>However, this does give repugnant ideas a place to spread. It normalizes them. It makes things much, much worse.

I get where you are coming from, but, can we look at three historical examples of repugnant ideas?

1. The earth does not revolve around the sun.

2. Slavery is immoral and man should never own another.

3. Women should take part in the voting process.

There are millions I'm sure from "You need to wash your hands to stop the spread of invisible things that kill people" to "Public executions as decided on by a King are not good for our society" to "The indigenous people here should have the same rights and protections we afford ourselves".

We are wrong about stuff all the fucking time! The humans in society that argued for the worst things, were the same as us. What if we are drastically wrong about any event in the last year? Where do we discuss it without fear of reprisal?

I do not think it's a good idea to "pre-decide" on what is a "repugnant idea". This is what conversation is supposed to be for.
Imagine a hypothetical, well-intentioned free speech focused platform, without censorship and with low moderation: it will attract those people because those people have nowhere else to go. That strategy is a non-starter. The real requirement is that we are pushing for a world of auto-moderation where robots have to approve every single thing we say online - otherwise you are not allowed to let people communicate.
On the other hand: the larger Twitter is, the easier it is for them to bargain hard with Amazon. A world with multiple competing Twitter-like services is potentially better for Amazon's bottom line.
The South could have a 3/5 slave vote with or without an electoral college. That was related to total votes and representatives in congress. If anything, Shay's Rebellion was the real reason. The majority (farmers) voted with their guns to steal from the minority (bankers).

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper. Several Federalist papers are dedicated exclusively to this idea and the problems of previous democracies. Defending minorities (specifically religious minorities) was the primary reason for going with a Constitutional Republic instead.

The Senate was a similar concession that smaller or less populous states deserved equal voice to larger states. I'd note that if slavery were the reason for the formation, then the Senate would have been a bad idea as it stripped power away from the Southern states (as that article points out, Virginia alone had more than 10% of the total House votes).
I don't know, but again: does that matter? Is Amazon obliged to keep their communications with Parler private? Certainly Amazon's customers don't adhere to that norm.

The controversy here seems very simple. When Amazon alerted Parler to specific violent posts, did Parler immediately remove them, or did it wait to remove them until shit blew up? I don't know that I need to care whether or when Amazon alerted BuzzFeed. Amazon says it's removing Parler because of Parler's behavior, not because of something Buzzfeed reported.
It's really ridiculous of AMD to keep fucking this up, even if the backdoor thing never stuck for RDRAND, the fact that one CPU vendor can't manage to make the thing not return identical values many many times over sure might.

Similar story for systemd of course, nobody would expect them to learn their lesson. How nice of an init system to keep your system dead because it apparently needs CPRNG generated job ids of all things.
> That subreddit is just trying to have discussion among like minded people without trolls and brigaders disrupting everything

I love this incredibly sanitized version of what goes on in /r/conservative.
Messages are E2EE, but by default get backed up into your Google/Apple account which are easily accessible by a search warrant, or from a prism backdoor.
> Normal, political speech is just fine. Incitement to violence, no

Right. Even the Post Office is not required to deliver pipe bombs.

The issue is that right now, that's not the standard. Amazon /hasn't/ taken down sites in the name of political censorship, but it /could/. The implications of that are important, and they're why I find it hard to be satisfied with justifications like "Amazon is a private company, they can do what they want".
This is actually a great analogy. Its all about reducing risk for the overall business.
My big wish, I want to truely own my own data. If I decide to delete something, I would hope there's not a hundred copies replicated in a hundred caches somewhere. When I delete my own data, I want it truely gone. If someones node is offline, I hope there's nothing of mine left on it.
Well, I am setting goals, but I'm specifically creating systems to enable achieving and sustaining those goals. That's my point. Systems aren't better than goals, and goals aren't contradictory to systems. They feed on each other. Goals are motivation to create systems, systems are mechanisms to achieve goals.

Goals can also be "repeated" goals. Like my fitness example, I didn't want to make it through 140 minutes of soccer on just one Saturday (this is a problem with "I want to run a marathon" goals, it's a singular achievement). I wanted to do that every Saturday throughout the season so the system enabled perpetuating that ability throughout the years.
You can have any opinion you want so long as it is mine.
Let's just wait a couple of years to see if GPT-3 was any good in applications. Doesn't matter what we think, what matters is if it is viable.

It's younger sibling DALL-E is capable of language grounded in images, I expect the next version to be multi-modal as well. On another line of research there's effort to tame the horse (GPT) by attaching a secondary neural net. This can monitor language, topic, style and bias and ensure increased accuracy in tasks by auto-learning good prompts. It would make development of applications much easier because the base model which was super expensive to train can be reused many times while the secondary net is small and fast to train. Other efforts are related to including a search engine on an inner loop, to make the language model able to query large collections. Also, there's an open effort to create a huge text corpus, so far 800GB (The Pile). It improves on the GPT-3 training corpus on some categories that were lacking.

I think it's safe to say the article is way off the current research level.
I was a teenager doing Android Development in 2010. What difference does age make in this discussion?
All things equal, it's good in itself to diversify geographically your portfolio of apps. Signal is in Silicon Valley, Telegram is in Dubai, so I go for Telegram.
They removed Lin Wood's post that called for executing the VP.

https://cbs58.com/news/mediaite-parler-ceo-says-it-took-down...
3) The claim for contract violation is invalid because the contract says it has to be arbitrated instead:

> Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration law apply to this Agreement.
Is your social media account yours?
I am very interested in the issue of owning an account on a social network. Should the account belong to the person who registered it or is it the property of the company that owns the platform? Let's think it over.

Some people, for example, invest in design, promotion and content creation for their account. If we assume that the account does not belong to a person, then it turns out that his investments are very doubtful. If we assume that a person's account is his property, then we need a mechanism to hold them accountable for displaying prohibited content.

Let's try to compare a social media account and a house (an ordinary house, or an apartment that you own). If you posted on your house a call to violence in letters that are visible from many meters away, the police would come (after the complaint) to you. Home is yours, no one questions it. But you will be asked to withdraw the call. In this case, you are sure that your house will not be demolished, even if you refuse to withdraw the call. Other sanctions will follow, but your house will remain standing even if you go to jail for a ride to resist the police.
If an armed mob flew in from all over the country with nooses, hoods, and zipties, to invade Richville, CA... And five people died, before it was dispersed by the police, the FBI, and the national guard, I'd expect #eattherich might also get banned from Twitter.

Observe: That's generally the point when political speech crosses the line from 'soap box' to 'bullet box.' [1] Trump and his friends crossed that line on January 6th. #eattherich, Chapo Trap House, etc, has yet to do so.

You're drawing false equivalences.

[1] Despite having lost its case at both the ballot box, and the jury box. [2]

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty