skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the initial language doesn't matter all that much as long as you can get interest in programming and have some structure to break you of any bad habits after you first start. I taught my self to program with GW Basic and goto statements in the early 2000's. At that point it was already a horribly antiquated technology but it ran on my braille notetaker so the learning curve to get started was super low. With in a year or two of getting started I was in a C++ class using normal computers which broke me of all the bad habits I had taught myself.
WAT?

Of course! If someone commits a crime and is not charged, that does not mean they didn't commit the crime.
Technically all information is just a big number.
Personal behavior can have consequences. If I get in the habit of abusing my neighbors and the local service staff, I might get banned from buying lattes along with the other adults.

This isn’t a complex concept. The idea that a company can continually host people planning an insurrection and not get shown the door by the free market is actually a radical idea.
If he was worried about an angry mob, wouldn’t he try to not anger them?
I wasn't being too serious, but you're correct, usually things age out for other reasons, like old WiFi access points becoming obsolete or shoes getting worn, and the occasional cheap electronic crap from some startup that outsourced to China's lowest bidder.
From the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

> How are stories ranked?

> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.

> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.
First they came for the National Socialists.
Your sources don't tell the whole story. A large majority of them are misdemeanors - and largely irrelevant and not worth the time.

Most of the felonies would be tried with proper evidence. Just because a crime is reported doesn't mean a conviction can occur. This is basic stuff.
And now this is off the front page. 61 points in 15 minutes and it has been pushed to the top of page 2.
What happened to Silicon Valley? Just a few years ago, something like this would have triggered libertarian-leaning outrage, especially on HN. Remember the vigorous defenses on here of Backpage? Suddenly everyone’s clutching their pearls and cheering bans that are increasingly broad and unfocused.
If you’re using YouTube, it supports other formats than just H.264. So, in that instance, lack of H.264 isn’t noticeable.
The lesson for today:

Anything that you entrust to somebody else is no longer yours.

When a social medium or a cloud service shows that it is more powerful than the sitting President of the US, something is seriously wrong.

Forget Putin. Trump, Biden, and all of Congress are Bezos and Zuckerberg's bitches.
> Finally, think about Jesus’ disciples in Gethsemane. All their work over the previous years was in danger as their master, the one with whom they had entrusted everything, was hauled away by the authorities. Their very identity, all they had seen and believed to be true, was apparently lost.

We're just just choosing someone we think can manage the government for 4 years for Christ's sake, not a spiritual leader to your salvation and eternal life. Your job is just to pick someone you think can manage international relations with other countries, trade deals, and work on improving the effectiveness of new legislations, are we actually at the point where people see themselves as apostles of a prophet instead?
Not a lawyer, but most countries have a rule, if perhaps only a convention, where you don't collude with other businesses to obstruct the sitting head of state, and probably specifically during a state of national emergency. Maybe the U.S. is different, and even if it isn't, the incoming admin won't prosecute it, but it looks bad for tech platforms either way. We indeed live in interesting times.
It is moot because the parler system has no accountability for the company or the "moderators". Parler can just say it was moderated by these random accounts and then try and wash their hands clean. The point is to have accountable, enforceable moderation.

For people interested, this is the moderation system according to an interview the CEO gave ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher... ).

> Well, the way we work on our platform is we put everything to a community jury. So everyone’s judged by a jury of their peers in determining whether the action is illegal or against our rules. And so if reported, it goes to a jury of people’s peers. And if it’s deemed illegal, promptly deleted. But, you know, the jury of five people get to decide. And it’s a random jury, so they don’t know each other. They don’t know what they’re voting. They just get the independent facts of the situation and they make their own judgment call. We’ve actually been inviting journalists and other people to join the jury as well, so that we have a nice transparent jury system.
About 33% of the US actively supported Trump's bid for presidency, and accounting for turnout probably a majority didn't care if he got back in.

Accounting for business owners likely leaning free-market, it seems improbable that they mean 'Trump supporters' when they say 'we don't want to advertise with neo-nazis'. They probably mean literal neo-nazi.

I don't mind if literal neo-nazi are moderated off a channel. Nobody likes them.
> This sounds like a weird way to invest. According to this logic I should invest $.01 in BTC and then to borrow from a funny commenter in this thread, $.01 in Dodgecoin, $.01 in Ether, $.01 in baseball cards, $.01 in wine, $.01 in beanie babies, etc etc etc etc etc - that basically any investment that exists deserves my dollars.

Honestly, I found that comment disrespectful and making a mockery of a point - it's all too common these days. If I were to take the opposite of the comment, we should NOT invest in anything and stay 100% in cash because each and every asset has risks and volatility.

> I disagree. There's plenty of stuff one "could" invest in and very few one "should."

You know that I agree with you right? I never said you SHOULD invest in BTC. I was making the point that IF one wants to invest in the BTC, then one can do so by a minimal asset allocation. It fits within your "expected value" framework.

> But the point of diversification is to secure uncorrelated positive returns. A negative return on the other hand is just a negative return. I totally agree with you that I could be wrong in my short case on BTC, my logic rests on it.

I agree. But, surely if you were willing to consider an Armageddon scenario for BTC; you could also consider a 100% upside scenario too. We did a thought experiment on the Armageddon scenario, I haven't seen any calculations on the upside.

> And just in defense of my case - I think about markets as someone who's studied and worked in them for 18+ years. Doesn't mean I am right and I have an open mind. So whenever I encounter someone who has the opposite view, I explain to them my case with the hopes that they can point me to what I am missing, but I always walk away with the impression they hadn't thought about the issue deeply and with nuance. Again, I could totally be wrong, but as an investor if it seems like I did my homework and the others are driven by hype/FOMO/not understanding then I am gonna sit it out :)

I am grateful for you that you took the time to listen. I could not find a e-mail or contact on your profile. I'd be happy to take this offline and I want to understand what I am missing here.
> The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives.

Not trying to discount this, as I know basically nothing about pesticides or bees, but doesn't this seem a little circular? The conclusion that the bees in the wild are heavily linked with our bees is based on the assumption that they were fairly similar in the first place, i.e. "there's no reason to believe the wild bees faired any differently". In other words, "the wild bees are doing about the same now because they did about the same before", but without any strong evidence that they did about the same in the first place. I assume I'm missing something?
What are you trying to say Biden can do now because of this? It wasn’t clear to me.

But more broadly what is your position here? Are you saying companies and people that run any kind of forum are not allowed to moderate it? They must allow all posts? Or do they have to have approval from the government for their moderation? Or do you want all forums and social media to be nationalized run by the government and we can have a state social media?

Surely I’d think state media and state censorship is worse for everyone than private media and private censorship (which is something we have always had in the US). And surely forcing every website with a commenting system to post everything anyone wants to share is not fair on anyone either. The problem therefore is something other than these bans.
If you can't tell if something is sentient or not after an extensive interaction with it, then for all intents and purposes it's sentient.
> "Reform the police" is a slogan and accurate.

IIRC, "defund the police" grew out of frustration with various police reform efforts that failed to address these problems [1]. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to take up the slogan of one of the things you're opposing.

[1] For instance I watch a video of some police deescalation training (in Seattle, IIRC), where the rank-and-file were talking back and not taking it seriously, and the instructors were not very enthusiastic or in control. I can't imagine that reform effort did a lot of good.
It's funny when one side does it, it's protesting and when the other does it, it's terrorism. Straight out of 1984
A violation of sales tax law can only be addressed by the government. The protections provided by Section 230 are from everyone who might not like something about you, your site, or your users. It's the difference between the government having tanks and all your neighbors having tanks.

Beyond that, I'm not saying online discourse won't survive, I'm saying that repealing Section 230 could lead to things being sorted out afterwards with the closure of the few remaining independent platforms and the cementing of the current centralized players who can afford to operate without the protections of Section 230. Arguably the complexity of inter-state sales tax has contributed (to a much smaller degree) to the centralization of online sales in the same way that a repeal of Section 230 would contribute to the centralization of online discourse. When was the last time you purchased anything from a truly independent store (meaning someone with their own independent site, not using Amazon, eBay, Etsy, Shopify, etc)?
The whole point of the story seems to be that you shouldn't just read a story like this or the linked article and take away a simplistic data point like "mmap is faster" or "mmap is bad"
> I'm having trouble believing that most people making this argument normally promote free markets

I’m a staunch free marketer and First Amendment advocate. I think this is a freedom of assembly issue. Amazon should not be forced to assemble with these customers.

If anything, this same group has fought for a more extreme version of this freedom through its don’t-sell-cakes-to-gays schtick.

(To be clear, I support e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to speech. They say awful things. But they have the right to. If they started organising murders or lootings of gay-owned businesses, on the other hand, I would not consider their actions protected.)
They're saying to apply the same rules to everyone, and that the rules should be based on a human rights framework. Those seem like pretty good ideals to me.
https://old.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch
After a quick search, yes there is at least one incident of a woman who killed a boy and stated that she wanted to kill all men. There may be more, I haven't spent much time on the subject, either way the definition of incitement doesn't require anyone to follow through with the incited actions.
Also depends a bit on how they set it up. If it was all done as code or config then they’re in luck. If they just used the GUI console they’re in real trouble. That will take them until past inauguration which I suspect is the point.

Good riddance to Parler
> You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers.

Please explain what about Trump's history suggests that he will be convinced?

I understand a respect, even some degree of zeal, for principles such as freedom of speech. But these do not exist in a vacuum. And, practically, the degree of the president's ability to speak to an audience is unparalleled.

In short, there are larger concerns here besides the general principle of free speech in the abstract. We should be discussing the consequences of incitement, falsehood, provocation, threats, disinformation, insults, and so on.

Up until Trump, societal norms, by and large, kept presidential speech within sensible bounds. [1] Trump has ignored those norms.

[1] Of course, there was plenty of deceipt, lying, cover-ups, rhetoric, and so on. But by any measure, Trump has blown the door off civility and credibility.
Between this, "you lie" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25675365), and "shut the fuck up" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673632) you broke the site guidelines so egregiously that I decided to ban you. You can't post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Being right doesn't make it ok to take this community further into hellflames.

Moreover, we've had to warn you about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21162256. I'm currently banning so many accounts that have built up track records of abusing HN that it would be easiest to just add one more.

However, I looked at your commenting history and it's mostly quite good, so instead I'm going to put this down as an episode of going on tilt under pressure (it happens to all of us) and just ask you to please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not sink to this kind of the thing in the future.
Not just as "win or lose". We view them as "win or catastrophe", "win or the nation will be destroyed". The stakes being so high (in our minds) justifies (also in our minds) going to any lengths to win.

I think that, as our country becomes more secular, many people put politics in religion's place. "If my side wins this election, it will bring the kingdom of heaven" (however defined in your worldview). The truth is, no, it won't. It may move things somewhat more toward your preferred configuration, but that's all.

Sure, vote. Campaign for your preferred side. But don't hold your political views with religious fervor. Politics isn't worthy of that. Jesus wasn't running in the last election; He won't be in the next one either.
Why does it need to compete with YouTube? Is it really a zerosum situation?
Any company that decides to stick its toe into content moderation has a job that is, IMO, completely impossible and will receive backlash no matter what they do. Moderating content in a manner they find acceptable is one thing, but moderating content in a way to make sure that everyone finds it acceptable is simply not possible and is only polarizing everyone.

I don't think social media was intended to become the new Town Hall, but here are, and private companies are shutting down discussions and discussion platforms. We need to shoot for federated social media that actually owned and ran by the user, not by a separate company. I don't trust any government with moderating speech, but I trust companies even less (they were not elected to).
If being a billionaire doesn't allow you give the finger to the stupidest people in America, what's the point?
> If there infrastructure is docker, or K8 than they can move quickly

It's only a matter of time before software updates are used for deplatforming too.
I've always thought that if you find yourself loyal to any given political party, that's an indication that there's might be a problem and you should reflect on why you feel that sense of loyalty.

Political parties should have to earn your vote every election rather than relying on a "force of habit".
On Parler they are bragging they have kill lists of people who they don’t like and warn that they are coming.

What do you say to someone on those lists? The FBI doesn’t think these are LARPers.

I am really afraid of the ex armed forces types that think this is the funnest thing to do with their short time on Earth. But it’s real.

What will happen when they gain control of nuclear weapons or other mass weapons? Are they more angry at foreign foes, or purging liberals? Who is an easier fight?
This sort of seems like a competitor to IPFS, no?
> Allegations are not evidence are not proof.

I don't see what this has to do with the business relationship between Parler and AWS. AWS alleges Parler broke their terms of service, had no realistic plan to come into compliance, and was not really committed to coming into compliance based on the public statements of their CEO. So they kicked them off AWS.
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Within Canada

Technologies: Python, C, C++, Java, Keras, PyTorch, Scikit-learn, Pandas, NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib, Fast.AI, Jupyter notebook, Google Colab

Résumé: https://anmolmahajan98.github.io/AnmolMahajanCV.pdf

Email: mahajan@ualberta.ca

I'm a 2nd year graduate student at the Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Canada. My research area is focused on how we can apply Machine Learning/Deep Learning in domains with the problem of data scarcity and obtain better performing architectures personalized specifically for every individual. I am doing my research via partnering up with Servus Credit Union working on a similar financial problem. I am open for full-time Data Science/Machine Learning job opportunities as I am expecting my graduation around May 2021.
This scares the shit out of me!!! Fuck Trump and right wing fascists, but AWS, GCP, Azure, Level3, Comcast etc. can NOT be allowed to become the arbiters of what content is allowed on the internet.
It's an opinion backed up by solid, repeatable polling of Republicans and conservatives in general.

Example: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/2020-election-results-almost...
For young conservatives who had the Affordable Care Act shoved down their throats during Obama's first term (and this was the last time Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency), it feels like a great loss to be back in a similar situation.

I just hope that the Democratic majority will take the polarization of our politics seriously and make genuine in-roads at attempting to solve it. Unfortunately all the things I can think of that would help solve the problem are going to require sacrifices on the part of our legislators:

1. Establishing term limits for senators and congresspeople

2. Banning insider trading by political leaders

3. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine[1] (or something similar)

4. Lobbying reform (e.g. banning contributions to political parties made by for-profit corporations)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Hard to have a policy when the public is dead.
What if streaming multimedia on the web was a mistake?

What's wrong with downloading media and viewing it in an external player, like VLC?
I don't see how Parler are "violent criminals".

I don't even see how Trump is violent criminal.
I did thirty days only cold showers, minimum 5 minutes, in December 2014. I found the experience rewarding so decided to continue, but not every day. I did them every fourth day for a few years and dropped down to every fifth in 2018. My spreadsheet says I've taken 538.

I coordinate them with my cardio days, since I find they go well with being hot and sweaty finishing rowing or running.

You know how lifting (or any exercise) develops more than just what you work -- things like discipline, resilience, grit, self-awareness, etc? Cold showers gives all that benefit but at zero cost in time or money and no risk of injury.

Also look up Joel Runyon's TEDx talk, which inspired me to start.
I don’t have a ball in this match other than the one that wants to continue to raise my daughter without civil unrest. How are you so certain of the benefit of this action?
It seems this isn't something that Silicon Valley even thinks is a problem, and that is a very big problem.
All the people who died chose to be there. It's not like bystanders died. They knew the risks going in. Plus, one died of stroke and another of a heart attack. Blaming those deaths on Parler is a little hysterical.
Russian Opposition Leader Alexei Navalny, Blasts Twitter for Censoring Trump
Finally "Fediverse" will now become a household word!

Applications like Mastodon, Pleroma, and the platform I'm developing myself (https://quanta.wiki) can now hopefully gain enough traction to replace the monopoly Social Media services.
What is you were outside protesting but didn't go in the building?
> are unilaterally saying that they shouldn't have a platform

Not all 74 million, not at all! Just the ones actively agitating for violent rebellion against the government.

Of course, with studies showing that nearly half of GOP support the Capitol Insurrection, the actual number might well be into the tens of millions. C'est la Twitter's freedom of association.
To add to that on the OP's comment, YouTube (Google) and Facebook use their own resources and self-host on their own infrastructure.

Additionally, you will also soon realise why Google and Facebook are essentially THE internet, since they themselves are domain registrars and are both part of the ICANN.

So it is almost impossible for them to be 'taken down'.
To some degree I think this is what they (Parler) wanted, it creates press and attention for them. It's free advertising. Whether it be hosting your domain with GoDaddy or your servers with Amazon, you would have to be incompetent to not believe this would be a likely outcome.
You know, Linux in general is probably the best example of this. Its success doesn't need to be defined by the desktop.

When people bring up desktop Linux, I always bring up that Linux impacts 100% of internet users because of its presence running web applications, and it impacts however many people who use Android or other Linux devices (embedded/IoT). Automotive is even a huge sector these days.
Yep. Despite all the agony and defeat that comes with being a trusty practitioner, Marxism comprises the only reconcilable political comprehensions of our society today.
Before this gets too far I’d just like to point out that anyone arguing this is an issue of free speech or “first they came for x, who’s next” is not arguing in good faith..

I’ve noticed a pattern of moving the goal post. The problem here is an insurrection and the loss of 5 American lives. Arguing there is not advantageous, easy, or particularly strong so the goal post moves to free speech leaving what happened at the capitol off the table.

I really enjoy the series on YouTube “the alt right playbook”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM&list=PLJA_jUddXv... This one is applicable here
Maybe those who control the topics are anxious that we not notice the carnage.