skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not a virologist so I might butcher the explanation, but I think the strategy for universal flu is to target the “stalk” part of the virus since it’s similar across strains. We currently target the surface proteins since it’s easier to make a vaccine this way, but it differs more across the strains. Going after the stall would mean we don’t need to shove 100 different strains in there. I don’t know if this will be easier with mRNA technology.
imo, "modern" would mean it removes or replaces features and characteristics which were exclusive to or popular in a previous time period but are not essential or can be replaced with "modern" alternatives.
What are unit tests, linters, SAST tools, and more all for? Naively, it seems to me that we swim in a great sea of tools to verify that we do, in fact, know what we're doing.
How else do you prove something using the halting problem other than a proof of contradiction?
I think you're missing the central point, which is that computation is observer relative. Anything can be interpreted as a computational process.

Searle: "Thus for example the wall behind my back is right now implementing the Wordstar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements which is isomorphic with the formal structure of Wordstar. But if the wall is implementing Wordstar then if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain."

That's why Searle asks "who is the user?" At some point things have to stop being observer relative and have an intrinsic meaning or essence of their own.

> Got one: the brain!

That's circular reasoning. The point is that qualia are not something which, in principle, can be the subject of computation. There is no way to represent the fullness of sensation itself, like the redness of red or the softness of silk, as information. So how can our brains be "computing" it?
A person recently made a video which was captured on Internet Archive. I can’t play but a few screen shots pop up.

The video is kind of incriminating due to what the person was discussing and the fact that he deleted it.
I would offer two counter examples:

1. It is individuals and individual companies making these decisions, it is not federally required. (And if it was federally mandated, I’m sure impropriety could be handled by the courts.)

2. Companies are censoring the president, one of the main actors of the federal government.

This is hugely different from the Chinese model, where the Chinese government restricts things which are negative towards the government among other things.

At any rate, I’m sure many of the technical reasons are legitimate. For example, does AWS permit you to host bounty-hunting sites, where you could be paid to kill others? I doubt it, and I imagine many people support that stance, even if they do not support kicking Parler. So we admit that some censorship is ok and even beneficial. Therefore, what’s the line? Is it content which is promoting literal illegal activity? Content that likely will lead to illegal actions?

If that’s the case, then perhaps we should be advocating that these rules ought to be applied more evenly to even more types of sites and content. Or, perhaps the rules are applied evenly, and there have simply not been many other similar cases regarding AWS which have gained popularity.

Or, maybe AWS should enforce no rules whatsoever. Then they could become a haven for criminal sites, thus loosing their brand.

At any rate, this seems very different from China, and I’m yet to be convinced that we have started some sort of slippery slope.
> Only the server, actually serves the graphics to the user.

The server actually serves the user to the remote client.

It's like "you are not the customer, you are the product". The remote program needs to communicate graphically with you, and connects to the X server to do this; therefore, you are not the requester of a resource, you are the resource being served. :)
The rule is there not to prevent clickbait, but to prevent editorializing the title when it’s posted. The reason is editorializing inserts biases and possible wrongs (unintentionally).

However, it is clickbait, by definition, but it’s not clickbait. If it was, I’d expect: “You’ll never guess what your Echo Flex does when you do this one thing!”
I was only saying it is a truth. It's a small truth. But truth non-the-less.
£3bn UK climate finance to be spent on supporting nature
Trivial what you think of as subjective and unquantifiable are simply so because your brain is too complicated to be taken apart while its running to inspect it effectively with our present level of technology. A subjective experience is just how your brain models your own program in order to produce a progressively refined program that will have a higher chance of successful reproduction.

The magical thing you think is beyond comprehension just isn't real.
You can orally actually vaccinate the reservoir species (mice) in targeted areas as well to disrupt the enzootic cycle.
With a single party in control of all branches, doesn't your idea of preserving checks and balances go out the window? If the goal were to preserve checks and balances, we wouldn't have seen high level politicians asking people to move to Georgia solely to vote in the Senate race. We also would have taken the time to do a real full audit of every ballot. No, politicians and big corporations like power unchecked and unbalanced.
I've banned this account because it's using HN primarily for political argument and that is not what this site is for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.

The purpose of this site is intellectual curiosity, which is not compatible with political battle. Some political overlap is fine and inevitable, but when accounts go way beyond "some overlap", we ban them. We have to or else the site will be wrecked for its main mandate. More explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. But please don't create accounts to break the rules with.
Political capital and the fact that it will get lost in the noise of all the other deplatforming?
It's not working on mobile for me
But my point is that an Ann Arbor Ambassador terminal (with logic, not even an 8-bit processor) talking to a VAX 750 (about 1/2 MIPS, also passing data from kernel into user space) was lightning fast.

The internal processor that does nothing but scan my laptop's keyboard to send events to the "computer" is more powerful than the setup we used to have. Yet the entire thing is slower.

My Mac doesn't draw any faster than the Alto I used in the 70s.
Unfortunately, you have to give Gilead massive amounts of PII and paystubs/etc for the uninsured free programme, which is utterly insane to an outsider to think about.
Wow, buying the bets just before the gamblers do is... not a bad thought, even if it is obviously still risky.
please don't take my comment out of context. i was referring to the narratives spun by the media as largely being false and filled with fabricated stories, not the Mueller report (something you're clearly still clinging to).

as recent as June of 2020 the NYT ran a piece about "Russian bounties in Afghanistan" that was effectively walked back shortly thereafter after it was deemed "less than conclusive".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghan...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-offic...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504

i hope you find this more... becoming :)
I think were going to have to start introducing modern definitions for modern times when it comes to anti-trust. For instance "network effect monopoly/oligopoly" should probably be something defined. Monopolistic domination is more governed by this than anything else today (economies of scale, bundling, etc)
Dead? 4.8 came out less than a year ago and there was a patch less than a month ago.

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/screen.git/
I'd love to see text spew into my Terminal emulator at 960 cps these days!
I think you'd rather say that Apple will dress themselves up to look like what their audience wants to see - that they don't really care about privacy, but more the perception that you have it. Their actions in China back this view up. You see, the expectation in the West is that you make sure you look like you're doing the "right thing", but behind the scenes you accommodate state actors doing what they want with your data.
> He is not claiming that they were not Trump supporters, he is saying that they did not scale the walls.

That's an impressive attempt to rescue the statement, but he didn't say “No Trump supporter scaled the walls”, he said “No one who scaled the walls was a Trump supporter.” While in a formal logic sense, of no one scaled the walls the latter would be true, it's not something anyone basically familiar with spoken English would use to express that concept; it is what you would say to acknowledge that the wall was scaled and deny the people doing it were Trump supporters.

And, in any case, forcible entry did occur, both through positions on the perimeter surrounding the building (prompting the perimeter to be generally collapsed as the guards at other points were then surrounded) and at some of the external entrances to the building (of which there is video), and at internal barricades (in one case, prompting deadly force to keep the mob away from withdrawing threatened civilians.)

And in some of those cases, there were people known to have been Trump supporters involved.

So, it's both an implausible interpretation and even if it was what he was claiming pretty clearly false, too.
Correct. So if anything Facebook/Twitter are beholden to these governments, not the other way around, they could simply block these megacorps if they were inclined to do so. I'm sure that would make many Polish tech founders very happy.
I mean they got to cause downtime on purpose this time. It’s basically their ideal situation.
Parler – 30TB of Leaked Data
The deleted video files along with the meta data and deleted posts - all available at https://offlinebay.com/
There's also wheeling, selling calls, etc.

I think the problem with a lot of these is that you can think about how the strategy might work for a couple minutes. Then you think it must be a good strategy, because it's complicated to you. This is a very common fallacy I've noticed reading about "options strategies" by extreme amateurs: because the options strategy is complicated, I am smart for understanding it (at a basic level) and thus it must be a good strategy. They don't hold up to scrutiny:

"I'll just sell 10% OTM weekly calls on this stock until I get assigned, then I'll sell OTM puts until I get assigned again." -> You can lose money selling puts. Pays less than investing in the S&P 500 unless you pick a stock with high volatility, which is more likely to hit. No free lunch.

"I'll sell covered calls on SPY and if they get close to expiring ITM, I will buy back the options and start over" -> If you backtested this, it performs worse than holding SPY. You won't backtest this though, and feel smart for spending so much thought on a losing strategy.

"I'll enter some hideously complex, multi-leg position. Because it's complex, and I'm smart for understanding it, it must be good." -> No.

"I found an arbitrage opportunity." -> If you're not using computers, 99.99% chance you didn't. If you did, it's probably very small. Or it's due to some misunderstanding like the fact that American options can get exercised early.
Do you have some sources
I am a bit appalled to see this given so much exposure on tech news sites. Isn't this textbook irresponsible disclosure of personal information? Doesn't this violate all the rules of Twitter for doxxing? Why is this still allowed? Has Twitter commented on this, or is there a way to bring this to their security team's attention?
I wish more sites would let you begin using the service before trying to hoover up user accounts. I understand why it's not always possible, but it sure is nice.
As a (lgbt)"right winger" (became one when CNN publicly blackmailed a minor for a 4chan meme that wasn't even anything special and ghen publicly doxxed him in 2016): Media has always been like this against the right. There is a reason why centrists and others call left wing authoritarianists "useful idiots" because they are endorsed by huge companies and used as a tool by them to gather profits or drive other companies out of buisnesses or use them to push harmful legislature. Honestly i wasn't expecting to see people wearing hammers and sickles and advocating for pogroms on their political enemies to ever side with monopolies and the bourgeoisie but here we are. No matter where you go you are already on a list(proudly supported by Pelosi and AOC) and if not already then soon you will be visited by antifa with molotovs and if you defend yourself you will be used as justification for further assault. There is nowhere to go, there is nowhere to hide, your own child is ready to sell you out for a penny, there is no place safe and my lord if you are LGBT you are hated even more by everyone. Probably the safest place would be telegram but its about as safe as pills from mexico. Oh yes when the opposing political party is in power have fun making your own ISP. You asked this as a technical not political question but the question is rooted in politics entirely.

TLDR; No. Since 2015~ there is no place left. Congrats you won.
That would be an amazing world. What do regulators think of the "platform approval" concept, though? I can't imagine that this kind of approval currently exists under most governments' regulatory regimes for vaccines.
> That's a security feature. If there was a recourse then locking the device ....

Oh come-on a thousands of Harrys working in Apple store can unlock.
Algorithmic Trading Automates Majority of Crypto Trading Activity
>- Science is science, but the practice of science is a social system

Well, there's no science - except if one is a Platonist (and believes in the concrete, and even real-er than real- existence of ideas).

There's just the practice of science.

And even if there was a science outside of its embodiment in practice, what would it be? Where are its iron laws written? There are 100,000 books on epistemology, the philosophy of science, methodology, and so on, but there's no concrete singular set of guidelines or tenets of practioners to uphold at every point (besides generalities like "experiment", "falsifiability", "process" etc).

And these things mean even less so in soft-sciences, from sociology to economics.

>The goals of being popular and asked about important questions and the goals of whatever your field are ... two different things.

It's not just the media goals that are at odds with your "pure" field's goals.

So are (or can be) the goals of your university administration, of your state, of your industry sponsors, of your vanity and/or greed, or your career advancement, of those that give grants, of the public opinion, of your personal ideologies, and so on...
Do you realize that anyone can claim “incitement” of violence since it’s completely subjective and therefore probably very dangerous thing to be using as a way to determine “guilt”.

In fact I don’t like the tone of your comment and I feel it might be setting some people off.

How about we keep the responsibility with the people actually physically doing the crime. People make their own decisions.

Your logic would dictate the person doing the crime takes no responsibility since they were incited into doing it.
Except they didn't; they alleged that the numbers had been fudged on rather scant evidence.
There is potentially a lot of money to be made in setting up alternate tech solutions for the people being deplatformed. The question is, how to monetize such solutions? Not sure if it would be realistic to expect substantial revenue from advertising. On the other hand, a subscription model would need some sort of payment processing and potentially would create privacy issues. But maybe these problems can be solved with enough ingenuity. I guess it's also possible that one could set up a social network with very large capacity just by relying on donations from rich sympathizers.
> But there’s also been a bipartisan rebuke of Trump and his gang’s tactics.

There's been no investigation report. It appears the left was responsible for a false flag operation. (The guy breaking the Capitol window appears to be antifa, and the crowd tried to stop him several times.)

> But when you play with fire (like telling people a fair election was in fact stolen) and people die, it’s not funny anymore.

Yes, it was stolen. Dominion voting machines are owned by the CCP, and aren't FEC-compliant. The USPS was involved in back-dating ballots and discarding ballots.

3 of the 5 people who died, in a crowd of 500,000 people, died of natural causes. Not unexpected.

Leftists, your feelings are not facts. The facts are not hard to find, unless you're wilfully ignorant.
gnuplot's tektronix graphs are quite neat, with a noble "oscilloscope" feeling
> They also don't have to allow foreign tech companies to operate in their country without following local laws.

Exactly right. So it's wrong to say that these governments are beholden to the tech companies, they could simply block them if wanted to, and perhaps they should, but either way it's obviously wrong to say that these governments are beholden.

> Facebook could easily sway an election if it tries.

So could the people being banned by Facebook. What's your point here?
Fruther, regarding visibility, as I understood the article, it's talking about people seeing individuals with more wealth than themselves, but I don't think this is the only factor. They may also consciously or intuitively understand that the gap between wages and productivity is still growing [1]. Crises like this only emphasize the difference.

[1]. https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1280x868/https%3A%2F%2Fbl...
It doesn’t have to do with her wealth (although that does give her better lawyers). The justice system just moves slowly. Many people spend upwards of years before going to trial. This is nothing unusual.

And getting married while awaiting trial is allowed because the accused hasn’t been convicted (hence, accused). (see edit below)

What would be unusual is for the charges to be reduced or even dropped. But, as it stands, she’s facing 20 years in prison. Possibly more after this incident.

EDIT: I wasn’t saying she wouldn’t be allowed to get married post-conviction. I was saying that, even if the right to marriage was removed when convicted, she’s still not convicted.
"cleaned the server with a cloth"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731566
Still the possibility of a pardon.
There is a huge reputation problem with the media these days. Bombshell headlines of Trump-Russia collusion evidence comes to mind, driven by anonymous sources.
Filing away the term ”womb cannibal” for next time a kid smarts off
My favorite social network in this category is Strava. Browsing the feed is super motivating and great for generating route ideas.
What the SF Bay Area Can Teach Us About Fighting a Pandemic
That was before sort was used, but then the later tests were no longer sound.
Saying this implies that anyone can get a flair, so long as they are not brigading. This is not true, even according to the moderator comments. "Only mods can assign User Flair, and User Flair is only for conservatives"[0].

So no, going flair-only is explicitly to silence those of differing opinions.

Don't get me wrong, they are well within their rights to do so, it is _their_ subreddit, after all. However, if they're going to dance around and act like a bastion of free speech, maybe it's time for some introspection.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/wiki/index/flair_rules...
Hopefully they keep it up and self sabotage themselves so we don’t even need to break them up.
You should look at your cites: Electoral votes may be discarded lawfully if they are not found to be "regular", as specified in 3 U.S. Code § 15: "and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified."

Not only does chapter 90, section 4 of the original act you cited provide an explicit procedure for raising objections to submitted electoral votes by state, conducting debate, and a vote, but the congressional record you cite shows the Senators and Representatives following the procedure outlined in the original act as incorporated in 3 U.S. Code § 15.

Hardly an unlawful attack on democracy. Lawful objections were raised, lawful debate was held, and a lawful vote was taken.

You originally asserted
>> "The real threat to democracy is allowing leaders to stop following the democratic process. For example, on 02021-01-06, 147 congresspeople voted to throw out the votes from an entire state, even after their party had pursued the appropriate legal remedies [ https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/ST... ]. Next time, they may succeed in throwing out votes. At that point, USA will be an oligarchy. This is the real threat to democracy."

Like it or not, the Senators and Representatives followed the lawful process. It was not exhausted until the objections were defeated. Asserting there was something "undemocratic" about the objections or the potential of throwing the out the electoral votes is irrelevant, it is not unconstitutional or illegal.

The objective of the process is to end up with someone holding the office of President. If it is true, however, that the election was fraudulent, and that fraud involved disenfranchising the democratic vote for the slate of electors, that would be a threat to democracy, especially if Congress refused to acknowledge it. The courts want no part of it because it's the responsibility of the State Legislatures and Congress.
How does one find services available on I2P?
So then empathy isn’t the opposite of anger.

Personally I have little empathy but I don’t think I’m angry. But maybe I am and don’t realize it.
The implication is that the microphone emits completely no signal without power and doesn't have any capacitor to last even a few seconds.

Surely the most valuable data is just after the mute is turned on?
I don’t see how this doesn’t boil over. People who don’t have anything to lose can easily be radicalized.
The parallel flops are probably hardening against bit flips from ESD events. There aren't any other active protection devices and phantom flips probably showed up at some point during testing of earlier prototypes.
I understand where you're coming from, but I reserve the right the call out an extraordinarily strong claim as questionable.

I stand by what I said. GP may not be lying, in which case I believe they have either only just started the game, or are not paying attention to its many readily reproducible, unavoidable glitches.
> whether it's worth the innovation token

That's a fair call, Shamir's secret sharing is pleasantly simple to use and understand.

Read the paper a while ago now but the scheme is still all fundamentally built on SSS, the auth, error checking and privacy layers are on top, so it's not a complete rework of what currently exists, more just some additions. Quite sure people have written some (perhaps all?) of these extras already in concert with regular secret sharing.
Got it, so Nazis are not fascists.
Can you name some of these companies or what to search form. I'm curious what things they are working on.