skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> the place where debate is had.

No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.

And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
Agreed. This kind of situation is perfect for separating the true freedom loving (i.e. "you do what you want with what you own") from the conservatives (i.e. "you do what we want you to do"). Those who like freedom says "that's fine, it's their call" or even "I won't do business with them anymore because I disagree with this call", but the conservatives say that "it's wrong and the gov should intervene".
Well to be fair, if you had browsed Parler recently you would have seen Nancy Pelosi's address between numerous _actual_ death threats to sitting politicians.
I tend to agree with your point about coal, but fail to see what you're trying to say.

Maybe the non-taxation of fossil fuels' externalities is akin to subsidies. Then that becomes the reason why solar power needed subsidies, but it doesn't change the fact of their existence.

I also doubt raising prices for fossil fuels would have had the same effect on research into alternatives. Solar power is now cheaper than coal, even at the low costs of coal you decry. Given enough time, solar power research will yield tremendous returns, and would have done so under any imaginable tax/subsidy regime for coal and/or solar power.

But markets aren't always capable of reaping such rewards. Not because they are evil, but there was a lot of uncertainty and extremely long timelines involved that those institutions just aren't set up for.

Politics, however, are. And it worked. Score one for that dirty concept.
Huh strange. I’ve used steam on windows, Mac and Linux over the years and with different frequencies of use and still only ever have to manually log in once every few months.
C++ doesn't have type inference at all which I understand requires constraint solving.

It has a much simpler type deduction system where the type of an object is deduced from its initializing expression, i.e. deduction always flows in one direction.

It is nowhere as powerful, but it does cover a lot of use cases.

One advantage (in addition to the ease of implementation) is that, except for circular definitions, there are no undecidable cases and it is not necessary to restrict the type system to prevent them.
Apple keeps a pretty tight lid on MFI though, right? As long as the box has MFI on it, it's probably legit, unless you're really looking on the grey market, I think.
parler sounds like a classic honeypot
> Those arguments always forget 1 thing.

> Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow

See comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25732255
And now they shut down Trump even though he called for a peaceful protest on Jan 6.
The thing is... who else would decide? Isn't it the function of the state to make decisions based on information that is not available to the general public?
Its a great project and it would solve a lot of problems we face today for sure.
But i fear it will suffer with a problem of adoption.

People had to learn HTML and HTTP back in the day, because it was the thing that would turn possible to transfer information through the wire with a platform called browser.

It was the same with the Windows API, VB, Delphi or Android and the iPhone is today.

People will learn that thing not because it will 'save the world', sure some will, but for more pragmatic reasons. So you also have to offer those pragmatic reasons to people, because those reasons are also important after all.

I know TBL was more or less on the "hippie" side of the web standards and it was very important to the web's core and foundation on the right track.

But i was not because of the HTML standard was great as a piece of technology, but the energy and the people that formed around it made it happen through the patient iteration over browsers, until browsers became a thing no one could avoid.

I'm saying this as somebody working more or less on the same problem, but who have taken a different approach..

The problem is hard because the state-of-the-art now is very sophisticated. You will have to compete with browsers and app platforms for mindshare, and i think you only can do it if you propose a new platform where people understand it as a better approach.

And i must say, the web alone as it is, is a broken foundation to lay out this sort of thing, for a lot of reasons.

So we need a new sort of browser, one that's so different that you actually wont even be able to call it a browser anymore.

This is what i'm trying to do. Trying to solve the same sort of problems, but with a different take than Solid.

But i must say its pretty hard, because you also have to offer, at least as a starting point, what browsers and application platforms already offer to developer. Along with this, there's a need for a incentive on the part of the user, the ultimate consumer of the thing. And this is also a hard problem, because you will need to offer something people want and dont have already..

I think i got this, but only time will tell. And even if the thing is somehow "right", even than you might suffer from lack of adoption as the incentives might not be enough and that 'killer app' that will make the platform boom never shows up.
I adore this project, and wish for it to succeed, but how do we incentivize or force companies to accommodate pods? Legislature? About the only way I can think of.
Recording Audio and Video on Apple Silicon Macs: A Setup That Works
You're the one who said these people are the same group, the onus is on you to provide evidence of your claim. But it should be self-evident that tech giants maintain a near oligopoly of social media discourse and people aren't going to "foam at the mouth" to support their own ideological destruction.
SQL is a DSL that is fairly heavy in that a lot has been invested in it over multiple decades. (It even has extensions or outgrowths that turn it into more of a general purpose language)

This results in ample tooling, lots of documentation, multiple implementations, some of which are really good and a lot of community knowledge.

One may like or dislike SQL, but it is undeniable that it is useful to and mastered by a great many people.

Most DSLs have few or none of these properties. In some environments DSLs tend to be presented as something you can create casually. That it is a lightweight solution. And what starts as a small solution can often grow - usually to a point where not having put in a lot of work in the basic design will make the language unsound.

I don't think DSLs are a lightweight solution at all. I think that giving inexperienced programmers the idea that DSLs are is something they ought to be designing probably isn't helpful.
Your reply edit implies you don't know what tortious means...

I said: > I mean in your mind I guess it's ok to make a comment that just states the word nig**r over and over because it's not tortious right?

You reply: > If Parler feels this is amounts to Civil Tort they will remove it.

I literally explained how it is not tortious. Regardless of jurisdiction. It's not defamation. It's not tortious. It's not a civil tort.

So you're admitting Parler won't remove a comment that's just "nig**r" repeated over and over according to their guidelines.

Thanks for making my point again.*
I think it was just blind ignorance, evidenced by their rage and disbelief when it happened.
> 2. Yes I'm fine with sexual predators living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. For the same aforementioned reasons.

I am parent and I understand what you mean here and It makes complete sense to me. But I am having a little hard time with this, some part of my brain just wont' accept it.
One issue: if you lose access to your email, you also lose access to your worthy steam account, since it emails a code every time
Or how about a system where pretty much the entire thing is built upon packages? Even for the most minute things like left-padding..
"Overwhelm" is a fine word. It just isn't a noun.

From the post:

> The world is full of overwhelm.

This is a total grammar fail[1]. Ironic, perhaps, hopefully, but definitely unappealing.

[1] Phrasing chosen purposely, purposefully, and also on purpose. Sorry!
Around here, even Walmart has no bicycle inventory... had to go to the flea market and buy a used one.
Sounds like you're arguing for more of an approach of placating them, giving them a platform and trying to listen to them as misunderstood victims.

Seems to me like that's exactly what the rest of the country has been doing this whole time. For years everyone went along with the fringe right and placated them. The mainstream media covered Trump closely. Talked to his supporters to try to understand them. The more mainstream Republicans have backed up all the things Trump has done and said until now. Facebook got tons of flack the last 4 years for not silencing them sooner. Now it has escalated to dangerous levels of inciting violence that actually came pass, which has led to a stronger response. But you're arguing for continuing to go along with them? Why should we expect that continuing down the path we've been on for years would reverse the trend of them getting more and more extreme?
People call for murder of the rich on twitter the whole time but nobody cares apparently. Double standards much?
Releasing people convicted of non-violent drug offenses is not enough; it’s important that we provide a smooth ramp to re-join society.

We should wipe their records clean, train them in useful, employable skills, and help them find decent jobs. (Edit: this is the bare minimum; I don’t want to get into direct monetary compensation, even though I think it’s worth considering.)

I would imagine a lot of people formerly-incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are (rightfully) resentful of society, and we should give them an alternative to committing crimes in order to survive.
> Do you really think the best way for a government agency to access government IDs is to secretly run a Twitter clone?

No, but it’d be a really good way to get behavioral data on people and use a government ID to tie that data to real identities rather than pseudonyms.
If you don't think they're comparable in scale or character then I don't think you were actually paying attention.
I think that particular bakery issue is more nuanced than you're making it out to be.
> I would personally prefer one step further and force to remove all locks if the customer asks it

They could but it would cost more than most users bargained for. Most likely a manufacturer would offer you the open device for the price of the device plus the expected loss of value from connected services (maybe something on top just for good measure), or a locked "subsidized" version that can or has to run only as we see today, and that will cost as much as one does now. And they could easily make a case for this even in court.

But once the support ends it's more or less implicit that the manufacturer abandoned the device and no longer expects profit (or expenses) related to it and keeping it locked is a harder case to make.

And I get a manufacturer's desire to profit from their own devices. But once they abandon them I see no other reasonable legal or moral claim a manufacturer can make. They should issue a final update that removes any protections, and make all relevant drivers and documentation freely available (or even for a modest one time fee) even if this means some binary blobs and a bunch of docs for how to interface with them.
Aaron seemed very opposed to large corporations and their control of information. The increase of control seems to be timed and in favor with the incoming administration. Government using business to do its bidding is very troubling, and I'm sure Aaron would have been very concerned about that. Remember, this increase of power can be wielded by the next populist leader and there are plenty of dark possibilities outside of the current Overton Window.
I find it comical that the more egalitarian solution[0] to enabling widespread free speech is outright rejected by the typical Parler user with some indistinct shouting about government overreach, regulation, or "competition in the marketplace".

[0] mentioned in the article: "I wish they[sic] were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but..."
> I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence

What I pointed out is that you basically said the violence was "justified and acceptable".

Those were your words, when you used the words "justified" and "acceptable" in your original comment to generally describe that violence in general. I didn't make you say that.
What would you use instead? Windows? Desktop Linux? stifled but not really snicker
Best Tips for Social Media Marketing
One of the keys to effective social media marketing is the exact same as the key to effective content marketing: providing valuable content. Unfortunately, this is something that a huge number of businesses have absolutely no idea how to do and that results in some very poorly managed social media. Here you will find 10 best tips for social media marketing.
> fish without a permit in the wrong place

Are these ecological concerns, ie. protected species or preventing over fishing, or trespassing concerns? I tried searching 'fishing' + 'felon' and I couldn't whip up any laws.
Yeah exactly, I have steam on 5 computers at home here between kids and myself that are used all the time.. rarely is anything logged out unexpectedly.
The issue is that the app uses a custom protocol to confirm Steam community transactions (Steam inventory trades, etc). So if you use an authenticator like AndOTP, you lose the ability to confirm those.

I reverted to e-mail. I only have free software on my phone, and don't regret that choice.
OP here: In as far as corporate donations influence legislation and/or federal action - I offer that this is bribery.
"I think perhaps you are correct, but I think we have come to the realization that people like your brother are gone and not likely to come back without serious help (medication, therapy, etc.) Just being exposed to other points of view does not seem to cure them."

This is exactly part of the problem:
The hyper-dramatic reaction to a mob of political extremists that forcibly took over a public government building that occurred when the mob was right-wing, and when the building was the DC Capitol, that didn't at all occur when entire neighborhoods, court houses, police precincts, and Federal Courthouses had the exact same occurrence, with a minimal reaction from the press.

My brother isn't mentally ill, anymore than the people dressed in black shooting green lasers in the eyes of Federal officers guarding the Federal Courthouse in Portland are mentally ill. If anyone had bothered to focus on the dangerous radicalization when it was people who they happen to agree with politically, maybe we'd be a bit further ahead on countering it. Instead, we waited until it was people on the other side of the spectrum to notice how dangerous the echo chambers have become, and will label these people members of a cult, without acknowledging the absolute nut jobs on our own side. I was in Portland over the summer, and the crowds around the courthouse were mirror images of the crowds around the capitol. The amount of derangement on display was equivalent. Instead of MAGA gear, it was all black bloc gear, but that's about the only difference.

You are clearly a part of this sectarian viewpoint, because I'm sure you're going to tell me numerous reasons why ONLY these people are terrorists, and not the people who occupied several city blocks of Seattle with assault rifles for months over the summer (with no permission from the residents). I view them all as lunatic, dangerous terrorists, whether they have a MAGA hat or BLM shirt on, provided they are engaging in destruction of property or violence.
>A lot of this is true, but I believe. I'm guessing you aren't from the USA, but here, "disgusting content" is completely covered under the concept of freedom of speech

Sure about that?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBuXYAAB4y2?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgB3XIAcffGC?format=jpg&name=...

https://i.redd.it/q2151lxlfpa61.jpg
>He was not murdered, he suffered from severe mentally illness.

Maybe having one of the most powerful governments use its might to crush someone and make an example does that to people?

Normal people are scared of a manager, a college professor, or making a presentation; imagine how they'd feel if the U.S Government was on their case specifically.
'Free speech platform' is a meaningless phrase, because it means different things to different people.

Almost anyone would agree that a platform which allows any speech at all is a 'free speech platform' even if they don't agree with allowing certain kinds of speech.

Most people would agree a platform that allows any speech outside of socially accepted exceptions (e.g. threats of violence, slander) is a 'free speech platform'.

But for people who are largely not allowed to share their views (rightly or wrongly) a platform which is heavily moderated for ideological conformity can also be a 'free speech platform' if they agree with the ideology, because they are free to speak all the speech they want to speak and are prevented from doing on other platforms. It's pretty clear that Parler falls into this category.
> We have the closest thing to a democracy that any country has.

Your overall point is reasonable, but this is a reach there are many countries now that are at least as democratic as the US by any reasonable definition, and some pretty supportable arguments that some of them are meaningfully more democratic.

It's not that interesting to argue about I think though, because the differences are pretty small, and there is a huge gulf between all of the democratic countries and the non-democratic ones.
> censoring of content

The supreme irony of this is that Aaron's role as a co-founder has long been censored from Reddit's founders page [0], despite agreements to the contrary [1].

More generally, Aaron had strong views on censorship [2]:

> I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug – that we should create communications technologies that allow people to send whatever they like to each other. And when people put their thumbs on the scale and try to say what can and can’t be sent, we should fight back – both politically through protest and technologically through software like Tor...

> How is compromising [by a technology company on censorship] supposed to bring greater freedom in the long run? That’s like saying “I’m going to beat you up now so that you don’t have to be hit as much in the long run.” The right answer is to stop beating people up.

But I do think that physical violence resulting in part from the amplification of voices by algorithm would have been hard to foresee. I too would be curious if his thinking would have evolved. Sadly, we'll never know.

[0] https://reclaimthenet.org/aaron-swartz-reddit-founder/

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/1octb/reddit_co...

[2] http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-07-n78.html
As a web dev trying to get into reverse engineering, this was super interesting to read. With the knowledge I have, it does seem like both things require a certain amalgamation of barely-related knowledge to be able to do effectively, and I didn't realize that until just now.
I think this was as much about the big tech companies protecting their own business models as it was about protecting the US government. Can Facebook and Twitter really afford to have half their user-base jump to a competing platform? This is an anti-competitive move if I've ever seen one.

I worry that the outright censorship going on here is going to have the opposite effect of what it intended--these platforms will continue to be echo chambers, only this time without any opposing voices to moderate the discussion.
What would they do? The government is doing nothing right now. For the next week, they're still in power. It's only private companies. The government isn't forcing these private companies to do anything.

And you obviously have no clue what Nazi tactics mean. If you want to talk about suppression, we should talk about Wikileaks, Snowden, Swartz, or the NSA. When presenting my research on Snowden's impact on encryption is 2015, we focused on the legitimate efforts of individuals to circumvent government overreach into privacy. This is so different my head is spinning.
Actually he was offered even less, 4 months.

http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aa...

>The alternative sentence to consider is what Swartz would have received if he had agreed to plead guilty. According to Swartz’s lawyers, the prosecutors in the case offered two different pleas. First, they would agree to a sentence of four months if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to the felonies. And second, they could agree to a deal in which Swartz agreed to plead guilty, the government would argue for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could argue for a lesser sentence (presumably including probation). In all likelihood, the judge would have then sentenced Swartz to 4 months under the 1st plea and whatever the judge thought appropriate, up to 6 months, under the second plea.
That doesn't change the fact that is was an isolated shooting that happened to happen in a protest area. That is not the same as mob formed and mobilized for the explicit and exclusive purpose of murder.
Should those things be established by law though? First amendment says the government shouldn’t be able to prosecute your for speech for a reason, letting the entity with a monopoly on violence say what speech is acceptable/how to deal with it is a massive issue. I’d much rather speech be deal with as it has here, with individual corporations and people refusing to work with bad actors as they see fit. This sort of suppression of speech is the free market of ideas in action, in my mind.

If it turns out that gives the current tech giants too much individual power, that’s a separate issue to deal with.
The Empire Is Not Done with Julian Assange
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBuXYAAB4y2?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgB3XIAcffGC?format=jpg&name=...

https://i.redd.it/q2151lxlfpa61.jpg

These were not taken down
You seem to be confused. Repealing Section 230 would vastly increase the amount of moderation on social media platforms, because they would be directly liable for anything posted there.

Also, the US has free enterprise. Businesses are free to choose who or what they do or don't do business with. Parler can sue all they want, but its a waste of their time and money.
Maintain and Release WordPress Plugin Updates with WP Updatr
> The same cesspool of vile content

You are troubling if you really find that
> "We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access." -
The Guerrila Open Access Manifesto by Aaron Swartz: https://openbehavioralscience.org/manifesto
And in time-sensitive situations getting something "ultimately right" is akin to getting it wrong.
How the heck is this comment downvoted? The is-ought gap is unpopular here?

HNs username must be Sam Harrises biggest fans...