skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Internally maybe, but AWS external connectivity is so shakey I wonder if it's intentional.

From a cisco ASA firewall to AWS vpg - there is weekly and even daily issues with things either plain timing out or experiencing latency spiking on AWS side. Cisco is not a small vendor or use case for creating a vpn bridge. We moved from this to cloudconnect - essentially a network connection directly to aws. Same instability issues only they moved to weekly/monthly instead of daily/weekly. This was from a provider that had fiber to AWS.

I will also say that when putting particular load on AWS's internal services from a single ec2 instance you can often see requests that fail (s3 being the one I see the most).

I can't speak on the merits or lack thereof on Linode, but I will say vultr and DO have - by comparision to AWS - leagues better public wan stability. I've had ssh sessions open for months on both and that includes to some POPs in europe. I'm comparing AWS which is <20ms away to something overseas... for reference that's about 20 additional hops and trans-atlantic fiber in between.
...and nothing of basic statistics? Data Science people want to know about your data pipeline and have some quantification of the quality of that data. Also, monitoring data pipelines for data integrity often relies upon a statistical test. You don't need to go as far as Bayesian but you do need to understand when a median goes way off or if it bi-modal, etc.
Right. That was her point. Free speech is at risk when it’s Zuckerberg making the call.
Repeal section 230 protections.... govern them like utility companies...
My new year's resolution to make more money
back up a little here. I can find Parler on Google. Does that mean google should be shut down and everyone who supports it shut down as well?

Twitter is used for this kind of thing too. So is whatsapp, signal, telegram etc.

Do we ban all Trump marches/meetups just in case those are used as platforms to organize violence? Why don't we just ban meeting up in public for everyone who voted trump because people can use their mouths to arrange violent mobs too.
Nah man, I won't criticize too hard. There but for the grace of god goes I, you know?

I've had flakey dependencies. I've thought "maybe fail open is okay in this one case". You're growth hacking your company and you don't want to be held back because a dependency can't handle your scale. And hey, if a few fraudulent accounts get in, we'll just clean them up later. Cost benefit analysis here, right?

But the road to hell is paved with trying to improve user experience.
Publishing the data could be DMCA’d by the authors of the original messages.
Yes, because WikiLeaks is very diligent in scrubbing sensitive private information from leaks.
It's generally a good idea for leakers to be selective about their releases (Snowden did a better job than Manning in that area IMO). I guess Wikileaks is between a rock and a hard place, because if they started editorializing then that would lead to political bias.
One side has the guns, the other the hackers. Place your bets.
I generally agree that information from here related to the attack is in the public interest. But this is going to also reveal people who had no part of it. I don't think it's fair to justify revealing innocent peoples data.
This is great, although it somehow seems to me to be starting in the wrong end. The underlying problem is that it is more profitable/cheaper to just give you a new product (if something breaks while under warrantee) and then just throw away the old instead of repairing it. I don't know if it is because the externalities of waste are not taxed properly or if it is because manufacturing products that are hard to repair gives more robust products and less waste in the end.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twitter didn't shut down an elected president's account (@potus)

That's wrong. They shutdown the ability to post on @potus and deleted tweets[0].

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-twitte...
people tend to have the wrong intuition about scratching things. stainless steel is a fairly soft metal; it's really hard to damage seasoning with anything made of that material. but the green side of a scotchbrite sponge will scratch pretty much anything in your kitchen.
> This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us,

No, no no. I'm not too stupid to think for myself. I don't want anyone 'thinking' for anyone else. It is the mark of a truth authoritarian when you embrace other people thinking for you.

The biggest problem with social media is that they ARE editorializing every single person's post by choosing where it appears in the list or by placing a little blue disputed badge on it or locking out an account if someone has conflicting opinions.

I don't want you, or anyone else, picking what the truth is. What you are describe is literally enforcing Thoughtcrime.
Smart templates arent bad at all given that for most uses you want to enforce style and attributes.

Generation is easier than understanding. Systems like GPT-3 are not capable of respecting constraints, which is this basis for practical creativity.
"the media told me these guys are the bad guys"

and what do you think they are?
Also unclear how long they’ve been doing this... I’m unable to find any info about provide projects other than very high level blog style stuff
Not GP, but my interpretation: app sent a general push notification which, when tapped, opened a malicious URL in Chrome as the next step of this "funnel".
There are a few misconceptions that some other commenters are already making.

This min-cut is different from the max-flow min-cut theorem's min-cut. This is what referred to as global min-cut, which does not fix the terminals. In max-flow min-cut theorem, it is about disconnecting two fixed vertices s and t. In the global min-cut, it is about disconnecting two arbitrary vertices.

Source: thesis was on hypergraph min-cut
Organizational structure matters in the move to microservices
What exactly the difference between "private sector data" and "citizen messages"? Wikileaks published a ton of data from personal sources. Famously, the Podesta leak was from a private account and absolutely contained personal communication (about, again famously, a favored pizza joint).
Photo caption says :

"Trump storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021"

While as we know very well, chicken shit (and/or delusional?) as he is, Trump himself did no such thing.
Is "current perception" really common, or just what the loudest voices demand?

And even if it is common, in my opinion the very idea of free speech is that it may go beyond the commonly held notions of acceptability. It seems kind of pointless otherwise - what's widely accepted already shouldn't really need much protection.

Eg. penalization of blasphemy in theocratic societies surely passes the test of "freedom of speech" if you define it that way.
I can think of one benefit of going through Wikileaks (or WaPo): there would be a review by experts of what is legal/responsible to share, redacting for example driver's license uploads.
That seems the most likely scenario. This was their make or break opportunity. They should have disabled password resets as soon as twillio deplatformed them.
I emailed him asking about a way to get the current color on the screen, for a LED project I wanted to do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYnmtfN_lrg

He replied and was very helpful. Unfortunately he didn't know of a good way to get the color, but he did send me a bunch of other code for a related project he had.

In the end, I just captured the color from a single pixel on the screen, which was fast and good enough for me, and the result is above.
Oh, it’s feasible. That’s close to what I’m fiddling with (just GoalZero.com products instead of bare car batteries etc). It’s quite workable, but you have to be keenly aware of usage & limitations, and fiddle with stuff often (ex.: coping with passing shadows). Most people are expecting complete reliability - that’s costly.
People should have legal rights to contest bans of any kind...

Without regulations on "allowed" reasons for bans, or some standard of proof, then a company can just respond to the contest with "Because we wanted to." and then what?
Umm I'm not sure which group you're referring to!
That's like saying Amazon was actively helping hackers when your app allows anyone to log in when it can't connect to a passwords table in a shut down DynamoDB instance.

Twilio shut down the account and Parler decided to pass all verification attempts instead.
I can't describe how much I hope something comes out of it. Not because I have some illusion of this tackling corporate greed, or helping the environment - devices will likely become more expensive and bulkier as a result, supply chain of replacement parts is generating heaps of waste too.

I simply am surrounded by tens and hundreds of sort-of-broken devices that don't force me to replace yet, but are not fixable either. The laptop overheats, phone compass never works properly, one port in the TV is dead, there is no light in the fridge (but it still works). The list goes on. I just want a world where stuff lasting a lifetime exists.
Bitcoin, always crashes:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XbZ8zDpX2Mg
I'd be much more worried about governments telling me what I can/can't say, rather than private companies not letting me use their platforms to say it.
a good catch, thanks!
You're not wrong about stock volatility, but I think the point that there aren't any mechanisms for safety at all are fairly valid still:

"Investors who are out of pocket will not be able to rely on the Financial Ombudsman Service to settle complaints or order compensation from offending firms. Consumers are also unlikely to be covered under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers losses up to £85,000 on fully regulated accounts and investment products including pensions."

You also can't, say, sue BitCoin for securities fraud (or, more realistically, be part of a class-action lawsuit) like you could against a company that you own stock in[0].

Again, I'm not trying to say that stocks are "safe", but it's also true that you have more protections investing in them than you do with Bitcoin (at least for now).

[0]:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
The Progressive Purge Begins: Tech’s stampede will lead to more populist anger
Heading? All large financial transactions, including loans (the topic of TFA) in the US are already reported to the state.
And that was widely criticized as improper behavior.

Parler is not good, but stealing and publishing this information is also not traditionally ethical.
>and naive engineers who are willingly ignorant in their security practices.

Fairly sure we could replace algorithm and data structure whiteboard interviews with security interviews and we'd all be better off
Ungated: https://archive.is/ZBkbs
As I mentioned:

>Taking the time to try and explain why location data being uploaded may be dangerous would similarly be met with yawns.

Yes, I have explained. No, they still don't care (or realize that impact).
Or just oversight, could actually be embarrassingly easy to mess up:

if not twilio_authenticate(user, pass):
return Err()

return User(user)

and:

def twilio_authenticate(user, pass):
try:
return twilio.verify(user)
except:
return False

Might independently look reasonable enough.
>But don't Germany and France both have actual laws against offensive speech on the internet

So does the US. Try "I'm going to kill the US president" (maybe with a bit more specifics) and see how long you remain free. The US may have a bit freer speech than is normal, but there's no absolute free speech
Fantastic work and great write-up!
it would potentially open up a secondary market for used iphones beyond the control of the apple economic empire.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
List of Coups and Coup Attempts
Under the assumption people are remotely ingenuous I'd agree, but in recent years I think that ship has sailed. The means always justify the ends, and ideological consistency is apparently chalked up to a loser's game.
The fact that you are being downvoted is concerning. You are not making absurd claims, just stating facts.
Most of the top level comments are mentioning that.
The United States is the only country where you are still required to take off your shoes before going through the TSA line. They can still put their hands all over you and molest you (they do to me every time I fly). No one complains anymore. No one finds the body scanners invasive anymore, even though the millimeter wave ones have massive false positive rates and are basically million dollar machines just for show.

The patriot act is still in place. We have FISA courts. We have unlimited domestic spying.

What fantasy world are you living in?
Just because Russians broke in doesn't mean it was them. I still believe it was an inside job.
Some in the bike industry have been asking for that very thing for years. The most common answer is, "you first".
Weev's conviction was vacated.
it makes A Brave New World look like reality
I could only find "All the President's Men" (1976) as the source for that quote. While googling that, it seems like he never said "Follow the money" either :)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/All_the_President%27s_Men_(fil...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/W._Mark_Felt
Interactive Topic Modeling with BERTopic
Twitter has zero liability except their profits and an anti-trust investigation which I’m sure the new president will be a lot less likely to pursue at this point.

And did you just call out 6 deaths which include a guy who tased himself, a cop who died of a random stroke and a woman shot in the throat for being there? Come on.

And yes, the 1st amendment restricts the govt but it’s hypocritical as hell for a company to espouse it’s commitment to free speech all the while censoring undesirable opinions.
They asked for an example of Trump "calling for violence" on Twitter, which I provided. Your response: That's calling for violence but the GOOD kind.

It isn't up to Twitter to decide if an individual's brand of violence calling is the good or bad kind, it violates their policies.
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies.

Fair point, I would rather have Merkel decide what can be said than Jack Dorsey. At least Merkel was democratically elected, while Jack is... I would rather not say it, but I do recommend to people to read the book "Hatching Twitter"..
Shooting the computer does not erase uploaded evidence of criminal activity.
Its also complete accident that there is now a 20000 page "Patriot Act 2.0" being pushed as a solution.
Yes, Germany has laws against some speech. But, even though I am no lawyer, the last tweets I see on thetrumparchive.com should be legal here. The only one I am not sure about is "Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd" (insults can be illegal in Germany).
Usbkill the OpenBSD Way
How many "innocent" people were actually on Parler? It was a brand new service. It really was "Twitter for conservatives who got banned from Twitter". Almost literally everyone there was one of:

1. Someone who got banned from Twitter
2. Someone who wants to follow someone who got banned from Twitter
3. Someone (e.g. journalists) who want to follow all those people

At what point does an online community become a danger to everyone? I'll note we had similar questions about much simpler services back in the days after 9/11, and the consensus opinion was very different then.
You can have free speech without anonymity.
We need to identify the baddies somehow.
And increasingly more and more things are being brought under that umbrella. The right’s doctrine of Constitutional interpretation? According to a sitting US Senator, “racist,” “misogynistic,” and “homophobic.” https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1320808025393868800?s=2...

Immigration is a good example. Cultural relativism has become broadly accepted among the progressive left. As a result, they increasingly can only see immigration as an economic issue. Preserving the country’s existing culture to them isn’t a valid reason, so they deem it “racist.” This is internally consistent to them. If culture doesn’t make a difference, the only reason not to have mass immigration is potential economic downsides, or limited infrastructure. Assimilation and the “Melting Pot” is increasingly coming under attack for the same reason.

This is totally incomprehensible to conservatives, who reject cultural relativism. They believe the success of a society is based on deep-seated cultural features and social reinforcement thereof. (I once had a Japanese person go through hundreds of years of Japanese history to explain to me why the country has less problems with corruption than many other Asian countries.) Within that framework, “we don’t want our community to change” is a completely valid position. At the very least, assimilation is indispensable.
Does that mean if I call my boss names and he fires me, he is censoring my free speech? Now apply that to Facebook. Facebook isn't censoring free speech and the definition of free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and not have any repercussions.
I'm not gonna lie: I find it very difficult to be upset by this when the site was a haven for people who want to mass executions for people like me. For me, the world is a little more complex than "privacy at all costs." It's hard to decide where to draw the line.
You don't have guaranteed freedom of speech.

You only have your speech protected from government infringement.

Twitter is not the government, and you waived your rights in their terms of service.

Giving society complete freedom is like asking for a body to exist without an immune system--cancerous ideas and movements will exist unchecked and feast on more of society.

Stop. Saying. You. Need. More. Freedom.
A bunch of assholes on here are trying to destabilize the country. what are you even on about?
If you’re referring to world war 2, axis engineers were in no way “mediocre”.
I don’t get the rationale used there. A president is not forced to use Twitter or any other social media. If they choose to use it then they have to abide by the rules of the platform, and the platform should impose the rules as they see fit. Forcing the platform to change the rules because of a special person is a slippery slope.
How is it not honest if it is 100% factually correct?
Nice! The article buries the point a little, so here it is: a pianist lost control of muscles that bring fingers up, but can still bring them down. So he got gloves that lift his fingers by a spring mechanism.
> The whole point of Tim's "pods", is that just like the WWW, they aren't going to be just another private, centralized platform.

Difference is that pods operate on top of open protocols for storing and accessing data. This means that you can stop hosting your pod and move data to another hoster of pods.
In my (personal) view, it's the technical part of a solution that definitely also needs to have a social/legislative component. It cannot prevent parties from illegitimate sharing of my data, but it does give them the option to hand over control to me. There are lots of companies that currently hold data on us but for whom that data is not their primary competency, and they only need a small nudge (like GDPR) to make having the customer responsible for that data an attractive proposition.
...and publishing the personal data they got their hands on this way ("In revealing the flaw to the media, the group also exposed personal data from over 100,000 people")
Political bias? Like when Wikileaks supported researching the Pizzagate conspiracy during the 2016 US election and posted links to /r/The_Donald "investigation" threads?
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

It's not every day that I see the name "Mortimer Adler".

He also wrote a book called "How to Read a Book" that I somehow stumbled upon in high school. That was the start of my love of reading (yes, I got off to a late start!). Not sure if any book changed my life more than that one.

Will have to get Syntopicon.

Here's a web page for the book: https://www.thegreatideas.org/syntopicon.html

At a glance looks like a great start, but works better as a git repo/collaborative ongoing project, and needs someone to take the reigns.
I'm not sure your point in bringing up Solyndra; with that notable exception, the fed's investments in renewables turned a decent profit. It's actually a problem, in hindsight: the program was supposed to take risks on innovative ideas and companies that would be difficult to find via traditional channels, but Solyndra had such a chilling effect that the DOE stopped taking those risks.
Ahh, I misunderstood.
Practically no. Judges, tech community lobbyists, and basically the entire state is on their side.
We should simply outlaw most privacy-invasive behavior. People will still demand news, social-media etc, but the payment will be different. Technology cannot and must not solve everything.
We've also normalized hiding our faces behind medical masks.
In the literal sense.
> I would also probably buy said malicious actors a beer if I met them, accompanied by a high five.

Take your lazy dicksucking elsewhere. Suggestion: Go back to reddit.
I think it's dangerous to start banning politicians from using a public (even if privately owned) platform, especially when it plays into their narrative of oppression. Let him incriminate himself further until he's no longer a public official, then ban his personal account.

I especially don't agree with their decision to hide all of his past posts. If they allowed it to stay up for so long, it should remain permanently as part of the political context of this time period.
I don’t think that’s a good comparison. You’re comparing professions that people interact directly with and which compete in an open market. Except for local politicians, most people will never have the chance to directly speak with career politicians and their choice is very limited when it comes time to choose one after which you are locked in to their services. It’s hard to think of a good comparison because anything comparable is usually political in some way. I would like to see more transparency and sortition applied to government. It’s probably impossible to do away with the career politicians since they are specialists but I think we should do more to keep them accountable like selecting a group of people whose task is to both directly observe and petition elected officials. Basically solving the problem of politicians being so far removed from the people by bringing a sample of the people to the politician. Sort of like a jury during a trial.
This Is Who We Are: Reflections on An Insurrection
You will stay freer longer than you would expect, you will get a visit from Federal agents but that comment is unlikely to raise to the level of a True Threat thus would be protected under the 1st amendment,

You may get added to watch lists, and federal agents may take a closer look at your life which could result in other charges or problems but it would not be that comment itself that violated US law
You can think of the compiler for a statically typed language doing exactly that at runtime for a subset of potential errors -- the type errors. Some people claim that they never make them and they may well be correct. I do commit such errors so compiler is a friend, but a pedantic friend.
My issue here is that while I agree Trump is goofy and id like to see him go, the definitions of what is and is not dangerous ultimately is up to a handful of unelected corporate employees. Those definitions are and will more so align with corporate strategy and a bottom line. And while its not a freedom of speech issue in the strict legal sense, it is by a practical matter.