skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your history of events seems... strange.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/europol-and-tele...

It seems like to me, that Telegram is cooperating with police services to delist propaganda.

-------

If anything, you seem to be proving my point? Telegram is closely working with European officials to remove ISIS propaganda today.

> Over the past year and a half, Europol has been collaborating with Telegram in tackling terrorism online. Building upon a previous Referral Action Days with Telegram in October 2018, the event this year was an opportunity for both parties to review the kind of content that terrorist groups attempt to disseminate online and further improve the referral process with the common aim of ensuring that material glorifying terrorism would be removed from internet as soon as possible.

...

> Telegram is no place for violence, criminal activity and abusers. The company has put forth considerable effort to root out the abusers of the platform by both bolstering its technical capacity in countering malicious content and establishing close partnerships with international organisations such as Europol.

The above post is dated 2019, which means they were in close collaboration from 2017. In 2015, Telegram immediately purged ISIS content in response to the attacks on France.

-------

I'm very confused by your post. Could you elaborate on your version of history? Or maybe what you're trying to say? As far as I can tell, your Telegram example only supports the Parlor deplatforming. When extremist attacks occur, our only option is to silence the attackers.
> How does it work now with copyleft licenses? If I gpl my code, does that no longer apply after the same number of years as a copyrighted work?

Copyleft is implemented using the copyright system, so it's the same as any other copyrighted works: lifetime + 70 years, so 100+ years. It's practically forever for computer programs - computers in our current forms won't even exist at the point of copyright expiration. In my opinion, regardless of how a copyrighted work is licensed (copyleft or proprietary), it's counterproductive and harmful to innovation. I consider that ~20 years is a more suitable duration.

The situation is absurd that the BIOS of the original IBM PC, or Commodore 64's ROM, and all other computer software from a similar era are still copyrighted, it can be a serious problem in the retrocomputing scene since redistributing them is illegal. Even for a copylefted project I believe it's harmful: if today we cannot make GPLv2 be compatible with GPLv3 or GFDL, we certainly cannot make it to be compatible with GPLv8 in the future. For example, Linux kernel contains a large number of algorithm and data structure implementations that are efficient and clean, but they often cannot be used even by GPL'd projects because Linux is GPLv2-only, what a pity. Also, the point of copyleft is to prevent re-privatization. But if my program will become obsolete to the point where it's too worthless for anyone to re-privatize, I'd be happy to let others to copy some still-useful code snippets like a linked-list implementation under a permissive license.

> How does the law handle a continually evolving code base?

Copyright of the code in old versions will expire, copyright of the code in new versions remain in effect, thus, the ongoing project as a whole remains copyrighted.

Thought experiment: Foo v1.0's copyright has expired, you pick up the project and use the public domain code as the basis to develop Foo v2.0 and release it under GPL. Now, if you inspect the project line-by-line, the existing lines are still under the public domain, but your new lines are GPL'd. As a result, Foo v2.0 as a whole, is a GPL'd project. Any derivative works and forks based on Foo v2.0 are GPL'd as well. But others are free to use code that already exists in Foo v1.0. The situation is similar to a change of license by the copyright owner. Old version = old license. New version = new license.
Can you back that up with anything? Sounds a lot like pure ideologue speak in the absence of any backing. The person you're replying to made some claims that seemed to make sense on their face, and it'd be nice to have more than a "that's wrong, they're not. it's just not" as a response, since I'm actually curious what the on-the-ground situation is in these places.
The “developer speed above all else” mindset is driven by economics rather than technic. There are no reasons why one should not produce a good design in a any language. In the end it's a "people problem" most of the time.

> Personally I don’t find go easy to read: the noise of the “mechanics” of the implementation gets in the way of the intent behind the code in my opinion

I'd add another dimension: reading go is slower than reading Rust, but it's easy. Rust may be faster to read, but you can hit some very rough patch and serious head scratchers.

It's all a trade-off at the end of the day.
You’re not going to deter the die hards. You absolutely will deter the “normies” with mortgages and retirement accounts to lose (I’d say their families acceptance, but they don’t seem to care much about that).
You're right. I forgot that christians and dicks are mutually exclusive.
Amazing stuff!

That lander is kinda super-saiyan-level-cart-pole !

Would love to know what sorta of algo's they use for lander ?
Your epistemological standards and justifications are much different than mine, and really speak to the epistemological challenge we humans face in an age with an increasing volume of information.
I think 1984 is more subtle than it's commonly been given credit for. Read the outer story as a fast-forward (narrated by an unreliable antihero) for The Theory and Practice (Goldstein is far more realistic than Smith) and it gets much better. It might even become a story of what happens if one seriously attempts to implement Plato's Republic.

Also compare to various essays of Orwell's, especially Such Such Were the Joys, The Atomic Bomb and You, etc.
I am aware of many of their issues, especially on smaller international sites. But even so, on a risk-adjusted basis I think they've managed to avoid more drama than other teams would have pulled off given the environment they are in.
Conservative men pride themselves in being distinctly men so they exaggerate the masculine traits like a beard.
So how did wikipedia get those editors?

But maybe that's a trick question!

Rather: What does Wikipedia consider to be its pool of editors?
This is pretty cool. How'd you decide on the powerstats?

Also, have you had any customers yet? I'm wondering who your market is
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We don't allow that, because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for: curious, thoughtful conversation on topics of intellectual interest.

I'm not going to ban you right now because you posted better comments several months ago, but please don't do this. Instead, if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
Multiple politicans have assassinated before, the Republic has carried on.

If there were a lot at once...yeah that could be bad.

But frankly there's just so little chance of that happening. If there was a chance in hell of that happening, Security Service/Capitol police would have actually done something about the protesters.
There was a thread I saw on thedonald.win - a popular pro-Trump self-hosted Reddit fornicate - where a commenter stated that Twitter's action of banning Trump itself was an act of inciting violence. The problem is I'm not sure you can reason with illogic like that, especially people who're angry and have been manipulated for years to decades to more or less blindly hate, lacking critical thinking and/or integrity behind their thinking - and will more than likely be quickly ban if calmly pointing out the definition of inciting, and likewise pointing out that Twitter is a private platform - and the internet is reflexively neutral in America.

You're correct though the deplatforming will be inflammatory, but the self-made bubble filter these communities of like-minded people are already on a runaway train that's only going to stop when real world circumstances don't allow them to just ban the confrontation digitally, when reality will hit them.

As I posted elsewhere, there's a lot of healing necessary due to multi-generational dis-ease progression - healing to open people's hearts and minds, so they can develop their critical thinking and logic that's influenced by the heart to develop empathy; I discuss this further in a comment from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702673
Doesn't even have to be political. Moneyed interests and fanboys and cultists use Wikipedia for PR and similar all the time. See Falun Gong, for example.

There are also groups of Wikipedia "editors" who coordinate off-wiki to influence its workings. (Sock-puppeting and meat-puppeting)

Even if we disregarded all the malicious actors, harmful incompetence is rampant on Wikipedia.

And I was just talking about the English Wikipedia here, there are many "small" Wikipedias which are much much worse.
The Harris-Benedict Equation for Weight Loss
In 2011-2014 era, IS*S was huge on Twitter. Not many people seem to remember this happened. They were posting propaganda videos and actively recruiting people on the public timeline. Jack was letting that go on for years. A lot of the terror attacks in that era were tied back to people getting recruited online.

Now it's basically dead. Was it the deplatforming? Did the world just move on? Nobody knows.
Headroom promotes linearity, which it seems was a goal of this amplifier in certain portions of the audio spectrum.
Please stop adding to political battles and flamewars on HN. It is not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So.... nothing in that link says anything about the guy who had a heart attack being shot.

The rest of your comment seems to be rambling nonsense.
Interesting! I wonder if drones could construct artificial glaciers out of this to halt global warming?
I'm not sure it even means what people think it means. Quoting the page:

> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

This seems like it's clearly saying that, as a society, we should reserve the right to silence any group by force if we consider them to be intolerant. It's often said that the government has a monopoly on force, so this is pretty much saying the government should reserve the right to quiet any speech it deems intolerant.

Is this really what the people quoting it want? I'm worried about the government using "intolerance" as a cover for suppressing speech it dislikes for other reasons. Some governments like manage to Germany ban certain types of speech without becoming authoritarian states, but others don't. Particularly in the US, I have a feeling we'll get Trump 2.0 at some point, and he'll be smarter and more capable and more charismatic and more populist and more popular, and I don't know if it's a good idea to give him the right to say "free speech is cancelled and if I think you're not being tolerant enough [to groups I like], you're going to jail bucko". Do people arguing on Popper's side have a reason to be confident that this won't ever happen?
> Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?

She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.

> Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?

He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
"But they're not like the other criminals!" Maybe let the courts decide that.
You've been repeatedly adding to political flamewars on HN. Please stop. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: we've had to ask you this more than once before. Continuing will get you banned here, so please don't.
Correct, Shopify has already banned a couple of Trump-related shops and I can see Visa and MasterCard going one step further and not accepting the transactions coming from Trump-related businesses at all.
not exactly untouched: after JFK was cancelled, Khruschev was in turn cancelled by his hardliners, and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Removal said:

"Let them cope by themselves. I've done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution. I won't put up a fight."
> Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders.

Well, considering that this is how domestic police and national guard already operate in the US—with police operating under municipal authority, or under the authority of the local elected sheriff, and with national guard operating under the authority of each state governor—I don't think observing this would give you any indication that the republic is under threat.

In fact, your points 1, 2 and 3 seem to describe the normal operation of American democracy for the past 200 years or so, with regards to most domestic affairs.
You have that freedom. You can do whatever you like with your phone. What you can’t do is force Apple to make software for you.
> Here's an observation: people who've survived longer than most are quick to smile. I like checking out stories about them, because I know I'll see an energizing photo of an upbeat person.

There is the other side.

"Russian Woman, Who Claims to Be World's Oldest at 129, Says She's Had One Happy Day in her Life"

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-woman-claims-worlds-oldest-...

Also, there was a documentary a while back on nursing homes. Pretty much all "people who've survived longer" were miserable. I remember an old woman who out-lived her husband, daughter, friends, etc. I still remember what she said: "Everynight I go to sleep hoping god would take me, but I always wake up." A modern day Sibyl of Cumae.

I don't think "quick to smile" has anything to do with longevity. Misers and misanthropes also can outlive many.
US EPA | Chief Information Security Officer | Washington DC or Durham, NC ONSITE | $173-199k

Protect human health and the environment by setting the security rules to carefully balance security with science and research needs across the whole organization.

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/588475600
Are you seriously using "we can replace them" as an argument why killing the VP, Speaker, etc. is not that serious?
indie = independent

indy = Indianapolis
That's exactly the problem, that every politician is fine except Trump. There are much worst people around the world but they are fine because the American tech companies view everything from their American lens.

Also, why should someone make introspection because some SV guy decided to block Trump, what about all the people who support trump, there are millions of them, what makes some head of corporate opinion in a particular social bubble so much more valuable than other millions of people? Try to say the same thing about Shi or Putin decisions, see how stupid and condescending it sounds
Like Animal Farm, 1984 probably says as much or more about english attitudes than about Stalin. (but selling them as about Stalinism was almost certainly a key social hack to weaseling them into the anglophone curriculum)
Here, I'll fix that for you:

* Wikipedia works in theory, but not in practice (as soon as you scratch the surface). - The problem is that there are many good pages, but that just lulls one out of the necessary skepticism.

* Try the Wikipedia sources that are hopefully on the bottom of each page instead. Also search on Stack Exchange and Reddit for book recommendations.

* Wikipedia: the Internet’s greatest reason to feel pessimistic about the state of disinformation and propaganda

EDIT: my comment is definitely more substantive and thoughtful than the one it is responding to, so I would appreciate if the downvoters could likewise reply to this comment, in addition to down-voting it.
Yeah, I think he saved that for Silicon Valley.
I once got into a big office conflict regarding "var." (rhymes with "far" vs rhymes with "air") I do at least feel vindicated now.
A visual history of Wikipedia going back to 2001:

https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/wikipedia-website
You don't think that happens with tip lines?

If anything, far FEWER mistakes will be made. Not more.

It's this weird thing where people hear about this one scary story of a guy misidentified and think "OMG facial recognition is terrible!" but they don't realize that happens to XYZ number people a day via human error.

But we're all MORE comfortable with it if it's good old fashioned...human error?
I don't think it's any secret that groups were planning an attack on the Capital before the days events started in DC.

Were those insurgents domestic terrorists?

What if it is to be found that they primarily used Signal for example to communicate their plans with each other?
I've marched in support of BLM. Protest is necessary, and for it to be effective it generally has to make folks uncomfortable on some level and that may include a level of civil disobedience. It's not supposed to be all fun and sunshine, particularly if you are the adversary of those protesting.

I'm diametrically opposed to Trump and his supporters on a lot of issues, but I recognize that a functional society needs to accept their right to protest as well. They should be able to have their marches just like we have ours.

However, the stated goals and actions of many of those in last week's march and rioting are explicitly violent and seditious. Many of the protestors were heavily armed. They killed a policeman.

Do you really want a bunch of very angry people to
effectively be pushed into a corner, demonized by
society and so on?

I understand what you're saying: by pushing individuals into a corner, we may make them more desperate and feed into the overall "persecution" complex that motivates their movement as a whole. I think that's true.

On the other side of things, if we do nothing we legitimize their extremist views? Those extremist views become the new normal, or at least most the goalposts for the range of views considered normal.

Admittedly, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation."

But this isn't about denying their views or their right to protest. It's about targeting specific criminal actions that we don't want my side, their side, or any side to do.
> Do people really say "etsy" when referring to /etc?

Nice to meet you. I've been saying that for 5 years now. Since etc is _et caetera_ I read it as _et c..._ hence the pronunciation.
Sailfish OS

https://jolla.com/sailfishX/
This is all both deeply immoral and disasterously unwise.
It's not, but in my opinion it should be. Just like in the EU for example, I believe the banks are legally required to provide you a basic bank account, regardless of what your politics are.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter in this case. It's politics.

To follow Twitter's own line of reasoning: does it make any sense to you to ban a president on the basis that he might say something that might cause violence, and at the same time don't take into consideration what the act of banning itself might cause?
You seem to place a lot of faith in an institution—the Capitol Police—that most would agree failed spectacularly on Wednesday.

It was pure luck that the doors of the Senate were locked and barred just two minutes before the mob arrived. What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten there five minutes before they did, when the doors were still ajar? What do you think those men with flex cuffs were intending to do? It seems that one of them was a retired Air Force lt. colonel. What do you think his motivations were?
Do people also have a moral right to not have their business burned to the ground, even when they had nothing to do with George Floyd's death? Asking for a friend.
Coffee is acidic and bad for your teeth, but worth it.

I don't buy the gut bacteria effect, or at least I haven't seen anything clear that's positive or negative - just vague comments that it's bad.
Because it’s well known that things get banned by Apple. If you want a platform where that can’t happen, choose Android.
I think the German Army and the French Police is already putting in place their own infrastructure and the company I work for might do so withing a year or two if we want.

Also, should anyone get banned from mainstream messenger because they live in the wrong country or have the wrong opinions they can run their own.

This is a huge step forward :-)
Matt can you please stop using HN for political battle? You've been a fabulous contributor and we love you. But this stuff is not what the site is for, and I'm dismayed to see you're doing it repeatedly these days. I get that present events are activating, but it doesn't change the purpose of HN, and I'm working overtime trying to prevent it burning to the ground—which is all too likely along the current path.
I hear you.

I have been wondering about plants too. I would like to share something I told someone just yesterday about plant sentience.

Two years ago, I was doing very brisk business selling chive blossoms. These are the aerial parts of the chive herb. They are pretty and puffy and pink. They have a strong onion’y taste too. And so make great looking garnishes for a variety of dishes.

High end restaurants love chive blossoms. And are willing to pay for it. I was selling wholesale to a distributor who was sending them all over the west coast. Growing chives for flowers is a tad tricky in the field tho. Chives are grown for their long stalky leaf parts.

To make them flower consistently and prodigiously, I had to ‘torture’ them a bit. Because I had to send at least a 100 clamshells a week with 30 blossoms per clamshell, the chive plant has to believe it’s going to die.

The plant sends out buds that will flower quickly to make seeds because it senses that it’s prime directive is done and over. So it’s two seasons worth of making it think it’s going to die and then feeding it.

That is outright cruel if it were a cow. In fact that’s what we do to dairy animals. We breed them so they can birth their young so we can milk them. Plants are not mammals. But...just because we can only relate to mammals doesn’t mean that the plant lacks sentience.

Human beings are just meat sacs that are directed by the impulses generated by the chemical soup we hold inside our skulls. And we are considered to be ‘sentient’.