skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I’m confused. I’m not saying there’s “meaning” to it of any kind, only that the ratio is present and observable. I’m not “insisting” anything. Maybe you’re accustomed to every thought being a conflict, but if I wasn’t clear already I was expressing wonder around a fairly common phenomenon whose commonality isn’t well known or understood.
The voters voted out the current president. "Stop the steal" is an attempt to override the voters' decision.
I think it’s a fairly transparent political move too - this is happening with the background of an ongoing investigation of these companies by congress.
Facebook is under no obligation to assist in planning and organizing an attempted mass killing event. Neither are you or I, which is how it should stay.
PyPI Xmlrpc Search Disabled
I have one, and I don't think it does. It's mitigated by the fact that the camera is very wide angle, and the design of the strap attachment is quite wide which prevents it from rotating.
I checked the URL and it pointed at the generator domain.
The results on limiting discussions are largely the same if it’s done by the government or done by corporations.
I was thinking publicsquare.gov, but this is a good one too.
So Facebook admits it incited violence in Myanmar but is still online but parler incites violence in America and is taken down? Who's making these rules?
I have a somewhat pessimistic view that the profession of journalist should be split into two, similar to lawyers:

1. Government journalists (the equivalent of prosecutors). Not getting any explicit special protection, but that's not the point. Your job is to present government's position and actions.

2. Anti-government journalists (the equivalent of advocates). Those would get explicit special protection. You could only be one as long as you're not taking government money. You would be obliged to control the government.

They should have completely different job titles.
Jrochkind1 first question isn't about the article. It's a follow-up to the side-discussion.
So the latest fake news is that everyone is being told to shut off operating system updates permanently on their devices to "block apple and google". ::slams head into desk::

We're already seen that censoring fake news on vaccine safety only has fanned the flames because the perpetrators point out "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!". So yeah, while these platforms have the right to do so, when you have a monopoly, it's probably the worst option for society.

Not only that, but as the conversations disappear from public view, they move underground... and I have no doubts this will be used to justify the next surveillance bill.
> You agree to not arbitrarily remove me from your service

Per basic contract law, this is only going to fly if money is changing hands. You and Facebook sign a contract with these stipulations and you pay them for the privilege of using their platform, and now if they remove you you have damages that can be enforced. Absent you paying them they have no obligation to host any of your content. Are you willing to pay Facebook to use it in exchange for these rights?
Formerly and regrettably used to receive a paycheck from UI, basically the case
My favorite so far has been

> The RSI is trading above 70. This could mean that either the stock is in a lasting uptrend or just overbought and that therefore a correction could shape (look for bearish divergence in this case).

The price might go up if it doesn’t go down? Thanks, very helpful.
Solar Technology Breakthrough: World Record Quantum Dot Solar Cell Efficiency
I've implemented something very similar at work, this was a nice write-up. Biggest differences we're doing is to use Welford's algorithm[0] to calculate a running variance, so we can calculate anomalies in real time, without the need to store logs. It works quite well.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_for_calculating_v...
I think both accounts of he friend that was with her and the detective that contacted the family could easily be simultaneously true: she could have been crushed, pulled out, and then died of cardiac arrest later, and tried to indicate that in my original post where I said more Han a simple heart attack (as in instead a heart attack triggered by trauma, etc.).
afaik there's not even a lot of cross-cultural evidence for this, let alone cross-species, let alone pan-universal. what is or isn't considered math, or more specifically what kinds of reasoning are considered convincing/sound/etc have evolved a lot over history, and is continuing to do so. lakatos' 'proofs and refutations' is a nice short introduction to some of the issues involved here. long story short, what it really means to say 'math is universal' is actually pretty hard to pin down precisely enough to make anything even resembling a testable assertion
This is often brought up, mistakenly, as support for restricting speech based on speech alone when it says no such thing.

Popper draws a clear distinction between those who will have intolerant views but do not engage in violence, and those who do engage in violence. It is only the latter, in Popper's view, that must be restricted.
Imagine a spam filter for social media. I actively want this.
I humbly disagree - there are times when application-level crypto makes sense. E2EE in particular relies on application-level crypto, and any password manager or "secret server" that relies only on TLS is highly suspect, in my opinion.

I attended a talk at QCon SF 2019 where the speaker advocated use of application-level encryption (even in web apps) by default as a form of defense-in-depth. I was skeptical, especially since client code itself has to be delivered using TLS only (and thus a successful TLS attack renders further defenses worthless).

But it does seem that application-level crypto allows a lot of networked devices (besides the application servers themselves) to be rendered zero-knowledge concerning most application and user data. This allows us to trust those devices less.
We’re taking about promoting the idea of deplatforming people on a massive scale because of their beliefs. I’m sorry the idea of resisting that offends so many people and I never thought hn would be the place it’s promoted so strongly

Edit: these aren’t nazis were taking about, they’re people who get a kick out of using the scientific method in a mistaken way
I'm not sure anyone in the (near) future will be able to guarantee you some sort of "right" that you can host/publish whatever you want and not be held accountable.

America is a country that prides itself (to an absolute ridiculous fault) on "freedom of speech" and "the free market will handle it". Well, the market handled it, didn't it. When the government fell short, the market stepped in.

The last 20 years have polarized society to the breaking point. To think that we can continue down this path and be governable, as a people...it's just not happening. The "free ride" we've enjoyed so far is basically over. Sadly, too many Americans can't tell conspiracy theories and made-up fairy-tales from reality and so now we all lose.

The coming administration already has an axe to grind with Big Tech and they will grind it. Both the Left and the Right want to see Big Tech reigned in in some way and even though the reasons might be different, the end result will be the same - host "uncomfortable" content and be censored.
> Facebook is not a country

Facebook 2019 revenue was 71 billion or so, which would put it at number 70 worldwide if it were a country. Maybe we should start to treat it like one.
It is a reminder to operate with sensitivity to the laws and customs of the land we do business in, even if we don't agree with it.

The days of the internet as a wild west no man's land is over.
Newspapers regularly decline to publish letters to the editor from loonies trying to organize a coup.

What is unprecedented is giving these loonies a huge platform that helps them find like-minded loonies to organize while keeping them in an information bubble that shields them from corrections.
The notion is that there’s a commonality, the presupposition is that it’s genetic. But without knowing the mechanics of those genetics I don’t think you could say one way or another whether the expectation would be limited to humans.
>and, most importantly, Douglas Adams.

Brilliant!

What a loss he was, died too young.
Facebook has actively known they were inciting extremism on both sides forever. They do it on purpose to make more money. If Zuckerberg does care, it's apparently not very much and only to save himself from jail or the chopping block.
Are we just assuming this userbase doesn't also have twitter, facebook, signal, etc accounts? I recall a lot of live streaming and tweets during the riots.
We have existing criminal and civil laws and courts of laws for this. The system is very sophisticated, though can certainly be improved.

You have to take each case on an individual basis, meet a standard of proof, follow strong processes, convince a jury, survive appeals, so it’s not easy.

But it can handle the grey areas that worry you. And while we’ve had ample opportunity, it doesn’t look like we’ve gone down a slippery slope.
> Phones are all unlocked here in New Zealand.

Really? I'm surprised because I'm in AU and there are certainly phones locked to a specific carrier. What about $10 burner phones?
The US is one of the most educated countries in the world! Only Korea and Canada are materially ahead of us in college attainment: https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/with...

We’re way ahead of Germany or Italy.

The America that sent a man to the moon had around 5% of people with a college degree.
Marketing is antithetical to a free market, because it makes consumers prefer brands with the better marketing to brands with better value at a given price point.

This is why advertising is so heavily regulated - though not even close to regulated enough.

Marketing via 'influencers' is even worse than other forms of marketing because it is one of the least regulated spaces, especially when graphed against its relative effectiveness.
What would you consider the "training" step here? The part where the author performs backtesting to settle on an adequate value for the threshold? In the case I don't really see a problem, since the author seems to be looking at historical data to come up with a value for a parameter that will be used to determine the model that acts on future data.

I agree with your comment in general that using test data in your training set is a clear example of an error that will lead to overfitting and a model that generalizes poorly, but am having a hard time seeing where the author commits this mistake.
People who use profanity and personal insults tend to heavily degrade the quality of a forum. And when banned, they react angrily and make alternate accounts again and again.

A shadowban reduces the incentive to dodge bans via new usernames. Reddit mods don’t have Ip address access or other tools, so shadowbans are a necessary tool.

You weren’t banned for speaking contrary to the mainstream. You were banned for insults and personal attacks, indicating you weren’t likely to lead to productive conversations.
WHY. WHY do web devs keep _insisting_ on taking over my scroll wheel? I don't want things to fly around on screen, and I certainly don't want to be rocketed halfway down the page if I so much as _nudge_ the scroll wheel on my mouse.

This might be a cool product, but the behaviors on that page are _extremely_ irritating.
Ok, so the rule is now:

Only content that is literally illegal or is spam would be removed.

See where this is going? It is hard to craft rules that allow everything without leaving a site unusable.
Keep in mind that this is just the Guard. DC's police department (MPD) may be getting mutual aid support from close-in states or states not so close. I just haven't been paying attention to know the details.
Everyone thinks they're the good guy. Even the guy breaking into Congress with weapons and zip ties. Even Sarah Palin claiming this is all an antifa setup to make Trumpists look bad. I'll go further (Edit: is this what's causing the downvotes? Prove me wrong!): even the ISIS henchman slicing heads off, even the suicide bomber walking into a crowded market to blow themselves up, they all think they're the good guy and have (from their pov) great reasons that one should try to understand. And just because you understand their point of view doesn't mean you have to stick to reasonable discussion when dealing with them. Some things demand action.
Beside voting and children, most of the time people need a permit/license to show that they are fit to do the things you mention.

I don't know what a way to show that you are a rational, well informed, mentally fit citizen able to responsibly vote without falling for basic fakes news and misinformation attacks would be.

At least denial of reality should raise serious questions. How can we expect a flat earther, 6000year-old-world believer, climate change and holocaust denier to rationally chose who to put at the helm of a country?

Politics should be about people disagreeing on the means to address a set of common challenges, not about those who imagine living in another world so far removed from ours that they can't have a valuable opinion.
> You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it.

And so will they. They refuse to believe Trump has any complicity at all for the effect of his rhetoric or the ways his language can be interpreted, because he didn't give explicitly say "go murder that priest," just "will someone rid me of this turbulent priest."
No, they just control the world's largest public square.
Arguing over particulars, OK well I suppose it was an important election. There is a lot of emotion running here so I watched the hearings on youtube to get my eyeballs on it without reading through a newspaper.

> 60+ courts heard the "evidence"
They didn't see the evidence. Seriously look at it. There are a lot of articles saying various things about it being thrown out, but it didn't get to court proper in any of the cases.

> the actual court cases were not about what Trump and co were claiming in the news.
Agree. They aren't going to try and claim fraud because that would take forever, they wouldn't have a chance to get the outcome they wanted that way. That they keep screaming fraud can be seen as a separate allegation that isn't being put to courts(because it would take too long)

> You must be confused;
What a nice way to talk to someone. This doesn't help with civil discourse, please don't let your emotions get the better of you, democracy could be at stake.

> Reuters ran this poll ...
Reuters ran many polls, here's one where 45% thought the election was not legitimate and accurate.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/half-of...

> They have been, they will be inspected even more, and they will find the same results.
They were not.
GA did not check the signatures, the video was not investigated, the eyewitness testimony of a trucker with a trailer full of ballots going missing was not investigated, and the observers to the recounts were kept too far away from seeing anything in every case in the swing states, what alone is suspicious, but few people are actually watching the eyewitness testimony because the press isn't reporting it.

> Now, instead of pushing all the "we don't know!" narratives, spend your effort educating people that we do know, and this is the process by which we can, and do, check the details.
I have checked the details, please check my claims yourself, there were hearings in all the swing states and hours of eyewitness testimony.

The risk is high and it is a shame that it has to be Trump that this might be happening to, because it would be the perfect crime, because everyone is biased against him.

I can see where the Trump plebs might end up, if you think that your elections are rigged then you don't have taxation without representation, with no legal recourse this would be ground for revolution. Remember one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

This is dangerous, and for any healing to happen I think that all Trumps evidence needs to be brought forward and investigated.
>>You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre.

>Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it.

Brandenberg says that the government can't restrict inflammatory speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". The case specifies three requirements for punishing speech: 'intent', 'immenent lawless action', and 'likely to incite'. Shouting 'fire' is discussed in the opinion as potentially prosecutable:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

> The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.

> The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

> This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.

P.S. the theater company can ban you for being a nuisance even if it's not illegal.
I see removing "stop the steal" posts as an attempt to prevent violence. Flat earth groups aren't trying to incite violence as far as I've seen.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said it was becoming socialist. I gave a simple warning that the reason is enough to silence vast swaths of public discourse.
Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
Microbiome connections with host metabolism from deeply phenotyped individuals
How hard it is to move to using OIDC with commonly implemented features such as SSO, anomaly detection, passwordless login, app based MFA, etc?

It's good enough for major financial institutions and available as a service using any number of providers (like Okta, AWS Cognito, Auth0).

I love Valve and Steam but their game launcher client (Steam) lives in the stone age when it comes to use of technologies.

That said, it's far better than the competition so I am still happy, but it is still annoying.
Because the latter would definitely be a form of government censorship. In fact it's essentially how most censorship in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey work.

If you tell a newspaper that they'll be regulated out of existence if they publish a certain opinion, it doesn't matter that the private platform is the one doing the censoring.
Facebook facilitates coups all over the place. Successfull ones, even! They care now because the democrats can actually do something in retaliation.
I just checked fbi.gov and there is no press release announcing this. If this is truly information from the FBI, why do they not communicate it through official trusted channels?
This was actually visible on some cryptocurrency exchanges, where the EURUSD exchange rate differed significantly (>5%) from the regular market exchange rate.

I believe that arbitrage within the platform kept the prices and exchange rates consistent (i.e. it didn't matter whether you bought Bitcoin for EUR or first changed the EUR to USD then used that to buy Bitcoin), but of course you could make/lose some money by exchanging EUR <--> USD on the platform then exchanging it back outside (or simply exchanging it on the platform, waiting until arbitragers brought the exchange rate back to normal levels, then exchanging it back).

But in effect, the lack of efficient arbitrage between the platform and the "real world" that allowed EURUSD rates to drift so far meant that how much your coins were worth depended on what currency you bought/sold them for, making the whole thing highly annoying.

The cryptocurrency markets, which seem less mature/complicated/HFT-overrun than the "big" markets, are great for learning market principles.
You should have invested some portion of that $1MM in UI and UX.
It could also be funded by tax dollars solving the targeted advertising problem, and all data on it could be given 4th amendment protections solving the big brother problem.
Parler was used to sell t-shirts by fake trump accounts.
From the Dec 28 update:

The XMLRPC Search endpoint remains disabled due to ongoing request volume. As of this update, there has been no reduction in inbound traffic to the endpoint from abusive IPs and we are unable to re-enable the endpoint, as it would immediately cause PyPI service to degrade again.

This is an ongoing attack on PyPi's search backends since around December 14 from the status logs. For context, this has entirely disabled 'pip search'.
Where are they making that claim? Every single case citation points toward the "section 230 creates an inducement to moderate." I saw some vague claims of sabre rattling about "regulation," but nothing about modifying 230.
That’s a bit strange though, don’t you think? TCP state only lives in the endpoints, unless you have something awful like NAT in between. Without NAT, why are keepalives a basic requirement for persistent connections?
So what do we do instead? Just continue down this path until 75% of Americans "feel oppressed" and that "BLM and Antifa and Democrats are Marxists and enemies of the people"? Yeah? 'cause that's not working out.

Or are you kind of thinking it is working out and it's your desired outcome?

The Right is excellent at projecting and playing "the victim" so I wouldn't be surprised.
You can keep claiming it’s one tweet if you like, but you know this is disingenuous. It’s 1 tweet + 4 years of destabilising lies + 1 incitement to insurrection

Propaganda over the ages has been studied very closely, there are known techniques. His incitement speech was a textbook example [1]. Why on earth would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt? He’s a wannabe tyrant.

[1] https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1347908845281095680 - A good deep dive on his incitement speech
Under your definition there is no such thing as sovereignty. Each individual decides for himself.
I don't think anyone is stopping you from discussing the electoral process. What they are stopping is a specific campaign that transitioned from questioning to violence. The violence is the problem.

You have to accept that there is a difference between questioning the results of an election and walking into the Capitol, killing a cop, and wrecking the place up. "The line" on what gets you deplatformed exists somewhere between those two points.
yes i did, thanks!
I followed the instructions in their email: 1. change password, and 2. enable 2FA (confirm enabled in my case).

Password change went fine. I expected existing sessions to my controller login would be terminated upon a password change. I suppose that's not mandatory but it sure wouldn't be surprising behaviour for security software IMO. It's the conservative thing to do, no?

Nope. Already logged-in sessions (web and iOS app) remained functional when I changed the underlying password. No need to re-authenticate.

Before I received their breach email today, the past two days I have been unable to log into my controller at all. This was being reported by others through unofficial channels at the same time (Twitter, Reddit). Ubiquiti was silent until this morning. Maybe it's just a bad coincidence.

I'm a new Ubiquiti customer. My gear is < 30 days old. Their UniFi Dream Machine seemed to be my "dream" for a home network (AP, VPN, notifications, guests, pretty dashboard). It's probably better than the alternatives. But I'm forming a less than stellar first impression of them after this. Honeymoon over.