skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks, it doesn't claim to override GitHub ToS and I will adapt the guide if anything in there is against their ToS. So far nothing was reported to me as being against their ToS and I think it's fine as it is. This guide does not endorse/support anything unlawful in Germany. If that guide is used by anyone outside of Germany, they should check their local laws before. As for the code of conduct, the current "no code of conduct" approach is only meant to say that I have nothing to add besides the GitHub ToS which anyone has to agree to before signing up anyway. The guide also specifically states it's not meant for use for any unethical/unlawful activities of any kind and some sections of the guide have been limited.
Worse crops in some areas. Better in others.
Why should companies be under any obligation to support groups who undermine democracy and incite violence? Is it not fair to allow companies to choose _not_ to support hate groups? Regardless of whether they have been successfully prosecuted in a cour of law or not.

Should we not have the freedom of choosing with whom we would like to associate?

Is it not hypocritical to expect companies to provide resources to hate groups on the grounds of "freedom of expression" when those same groups have shown, by their actions, that they themselves oppose freedom of expression and expel anyone who voices disagreement?

You appear to be confusing the government and private companies here. Government must follow a far more stringent set of rules in which certain determinations have to be done by courts. Private companies are under no such obligations when it comes to enabling speech.

You are arguing that one should be able to compel people to promote hate speech. May may not intend to argue that case, but by what is presumably thoughtlessness, that is what you appear to be doing.
We care about modern features, and are adding new ones continuously.

You're right that Matrix focuses on a distributed design where no single server is responsible for a room. XMPP doesn't focus on this (though there are XEPs for it, I don't know of any use of them outside of military deployments).

The "everything everywhere" eventual consistency approach Matrix takes means it is resilient for sure, but it's not always a desirable feature. The IETF recently trialled Matrix and were caught out by this behaviour: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/bdGVrXm7...

It can raise questions about data ownership and retention.

I am happy both protocols exist, and bridges between them exist. For my use cases I am sticking with XMPP.
Coping with Unix, a Survival Guide
I definitely agree that the growing body of knowledge about the brain and how personalities develop will be a huge challenge to our notions of free will and responsibility under the law.
> you have the option not to use it.

I think this misses the point.

Twitter, Facebook, etc cover a majority of Americans. These social media platforms have a significant effect on the beliefs and values of their users. Divisive, outraging content drives engagement. This leads to the curation of echo chambers that work to continually galvanize and outrage users.

I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation.

I don't think this can be ignored with the quip "just don't use the platforms". These platforms have the ability to form public opinion, and that is a problem for democracy that we as a society need to solve.
A lot of people confuse pseudo anonymity with true anonymity.

With tracking someone, "when there's a will, there's a way." The same thing applies to platforms like tor: If there's a will to track someone down, something like tor is mainly a speed bump; not a guarantee.

Just look at how the Silk Road was brought down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)#Arrest...
Imagine there are countries in developed world where there is no unlimited free speech. Where Nazism is banned. And yet rarely anyone will find himself 'on the other side of the double standard'. It is even rare for proper neo-nazis.

Free speech is just utopia.
Sure, you can do that if you want!
Identifying/naming publicly people is wrong, share privately with police instead
the federal government isn’t a building or a group of congresspeople. it’s the power we collectively cast as a populace. there was no chance those few hundred people would overthrow our government that way. the real threat is the power concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. that’s how we go from democracy to oligarchy to dictatorship. that’s the threat model. stop fearing the disorderly and the disenfranchised like the powerful want you to (effectuated via the media gaze and political rhetoric), but rather focus on how to disperse power and wealth more widely (as the framers intended) to keep that primary threat at bay.
I guess this tells more about AC becoming affordable in Romania than the weather.
The Future of Libjpeg-Turbo
But what if our companies are breaking Chinese law (like, not filtering searches), and that's why they've been banned?
It's not garbage. It's not obfuscation. It seems like you're the only one with a problem with this analogy.
The difference I see is that the Romans, Mongols, etc. were geographically limited and bordered by geostrategic peer powers, with the occasional client states buffering in between. Presumably you see different differences?

(I've read a fair amount of Kissinger, and his main contribution to US political thought had been anticipated by the Melian Dialogue, set about 2'400 years ago)
They pretty much have to do this, due to risk from 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.
> Could we have been more diligent in educating people on ways of debating and understanding, could we have built a society that is not obsessed with perfection and winning?

Humans are instinctively divisive. Our species relied heavily on small communities working together and excluding other communities throughout our entire human history. Tribalism is engrained in our nature as a direct effect of our evolution. It would take another thousand years to unlearn that. Social media is a global tool, and therefore social media has just brought out the worst in humans on a global level, but it hasn't created that intrinsic tribal instinct in us to begin with. Humans are just not meant to cooperate on such a large scale. We'd all be much better off (aka leaving more harmonious) if we'd live in smaller communities and would revert a lot of what globalisation has given us.
Good call out. Not just a disservice and unscientific, it’s just plain wrong. An observed variance in weather over one day or even a few days isn’t even climate. It’s just weather activity.
> If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged?

I used to agree with this line of thinking, but I believe the past dozen years or so of the information age have made it abundantly clear that simply having the truth on your side and making a rational case for it is not even remotely sufficient to counter the spread of misinformation.

Honestly, I'm not sure that free speech as a concept will be able to survive the information age. It seems as though any society holding it sacrosanct might be doomed to collapse from divisive pressure both internal and external. I hope I'm wrong about that, but only time will tell, and interesting[0] times they will be.

[0] In the apocryphal chinese curse sense of the word, if that wasn't obvious.
I have the opposite take when reading history, especially very old history. The more I read the more I realize that people haven’t changed in thousands of years. The only real difference is speed of travel and communication.
A democracy can be even more fanatically authoritarian than a fascist state assuming a relatively benevolent leadership for the fascist state, and a ramrod militaristic and homogenized culture amongst the population of the democracy. That is one of the absolutely insane things I just cannot wrap my mind around with people these days. No form of government is inherently "Good" or "bereft of evil". Saying as much is like saying a token ring network is inferior to a mesh network when the use case of said token ring network may not have anything to gain from the properties of a mesh network between all the nodes. It all depends on the people involved. Governments are much like computing systems in that Garbage In, Garbage Out applies.

A constitutional republic was deemed at the time of the founding to strike the best balance of all systems of governance at the time. That's it. It scaled, it resisted demagoguery, and most importantly, it virtually guaranteed that the pace of legislation and change was slow at the time. No man can do much damage in 4 years.

Fast forward to now, and you have D.C. pulling strings and reacting on weekly timescales. The status quo can change on the timescale of hours, not even days. Issues increasingly get pushed to be resolved at the National level instead of being delegated up only to the locality or States effected, which contributes to increased inter-state animosity. The key optimization that the Founders were going for is something that let everywhere "do as thou wilt" with a mechanism for collective action organized from the bottom up. It was certainly not the intent to drive the entire country at once from the top-down except in regards to matters of National Defence and International Diplomacy, and resolution of interstate matters. The role of the Federal Government has greatly expanded over the years, now including land management/conservation, operating regulatory edifi, law enforcement, etc...

The Founders understood a government was only as inherently good as the people running it, and admitted from the start it would only be fit for a nation of well-educated citizens with a vested interest in maintaining their own liberties. No formal guarantee was given that somehow the system would work sevoid of everyone putting their best foot forward, which in part means not getting what you want all the time, and actually accepting that just because you could do something, it doesn't mean it should be done forever, or even permanantly.
I hate to be that guy, but if the content on Wikipedia is wrong, why not fix it? Unlike other profit-driven community sites (cough, Fandom, cough) you'll actually be helping other people.
I don't consider myself a tolerant person, especially when it comes to obtuseness. You are engaging in a bad faith argument by purposefully being obtuse.

If you're acting in good faith, maybe consider your news bubble? Try places other than hackernews, it's demographic is upper middle class white men who are completely engaged to capitalism, which makes for some pretty horrific discussions.
Code is read more often than it’s written; optimize for reading.
Best Practices for Cloud Security Posture Management
still plenty of it on twitter and 4chan
I've found something similar with old films: there have been countless movies made, and the better ones have been preserved and left for us today. However, they are often less accessible and need commentaries to clue us in to their world.
Common perhaps but Etsy would be confusing in the modern era. Etsy is a web site.

I learned C with VI over twenty years ago, and was taught to call it ‘vie’ rhymes with ‘by’. Always wanted to call it ‘six’.

As for Emacs rhymes with ‘junk’, GTFO. Either this is a joke or a very unexpected pronunciation that I can’t fathom. I say ‘eee-mac-sss’.
You have the democrats calling for "trillions" in stimulus: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/biden-cal...

You have Jerome Powell telling you that "stocks are not that high" considering that the risk free rate just collapsed: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/powell-says-stock-prices-are...

If they want to go by history, they just have to look back at the last decade to see what this does to a stock market. There is no alternative.
With 9/11, the planes were just a catalyst. The greatest harm, we did to ourselves.
So how much of a vps you need to host like 100k users? More users?
I tried to look but couldnt find much information.
> I’m suspect of this very dramatic prediction coming through.

What very dramatic prediction ?

The 'collapsed' arctic vortex, like in 2004 and 2013, might or might not result in the "Beast from the East" in Europe, and its USA equivalent – too soon to tell.

As for snow, Spain already had quite exceptional snow.
Good solution.
But not for inexperienced users. They'll just enable everything to get their files.
Google is doing great job for tracking companies (like Google itself).
I think this is overplayed at this point. You must concede one of only two possibilities.

1) The capitol building has all along been an easy soft target that could have been infiltrated by a small contingent of terrorist.

2) The police purposefully stood down and allowed this to happen while doing the minimum to make it seem like they tried.

Neither option is a good look for our country.

Now compound that with using this event as a popular excuse to restrict free speech, when the correct reaction should be to improve security at the capitol for any enemy.

If you think this goes away becuse big tech takes even moderate voices down, you don't understand what's going on.
Couldn't a technique to determine a bug is non-exploitable also be used by attackers to find and ignore these and other bugs?
قمرشليلهrobots
I was confused what you meant by DDG properly proxying stuff. When arguing for DDG, people often say that you can still use !g to get google results (for example) and that sounds great, but when you try it, it doesn't proxy at all, you are literally redirected to Google and it doesn't add anything. But I think you're talking about which index it is that DDG queries internally to yield regular (non-bang) search results?
It's better because Twitter doesn't want to spread their propaganda even if it's rebutted.

Not to mention the population most affected by this can't challenge it since they're being decimated by forced re-education camps where they are sterilized by the same government that tweeted this

It's a little tone deaf to ask why it being challenged is preferable in light of that isn't it?

-

This is getting so old so quickly in the last few days.

I'll take the flak from people insisting the traction here is totally organic and has nothing to do with current events and that I'm just trying to derail things with "orange man bad":

This wouldn't have made front page as quickly before Trump's suspension. A quick search shows out of the last few months this post already has more points than any other twitter removal post.

Their removal of an entire campaign wasn't even a blip: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/technology/twitter-chines...

At the end of the day Twitter left a President's account along for 4 years through hundreds of violations of their platform, petty insults, vague threats to entire nations, etc.

They finally blinked when that person led to 5 casualties after a mob attacked the Capitol.

-

For the slippery slope to matter, there needs to be a slope.

Twitter has demonstrated their extreme restraint in censoring anything remotely deemed as official.

People can keep forcing this angle of how "dangerous" it is that they're willing to remove only the most egregious instances of rules violations on their private platform but it's just not true.

It's their right that was cemented by the Supreme Court because some lady didn't want to bake cakes for gay people, and the discretion in applying that right is excellent.

You can talk about hypotheticals where they go off the deep end and start censoring everything... but by that logic the US government can go off the deep end and start censoring print media. Nothing is immune from doomsday hypotheticals.
More precisely facilitate hate speech.

For some reason the fact that Parker is a cesspit doesn’t get mentioned. Perhaps because people here rightly haven’t been to it and are being intellectually honest and not decrying something without evidence.
> It's pretty clear he was being sarcastic!

Yeah…

> Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.[1][2][3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
If China sent it as a statement to every newspaper and television channel in the US, do you think they should be required to run it as a story?
I don't think reading it is pointless, even if you are very likely to accept all but the most draconian of terms. You still need to know the rules, otherwise, you may inadvertently break them, which could have very harmful consequences.
My feeling is that from the business point of view the big tech do want regulation, the infrastructure needed to moderate contents will carb competition and cement their leader role.

The thing is that the leadership of these companies feels bad about censoring contents on moral grounds. They thing deeply about these issues, they are smart good passionate people who care about their product and society.

Now that the demand for censoring data is unstoppable they will comply. They will also slowly evolve to start buying politicians (with all the reserves they have) to have a say in the legislation. Just like big pharma, mikitary industry, oil companies, cigarettes business and some others.
They were able to publish their pamphlets etc. I am sure people tried to crush them down, my point is to not celebrate that.
https://joinmyclub.co/
Ah, I see, exactly the way an plastic surgeon gets promoted to pediatrician.
Depends what you mean by “censorship”.

It's free listening — you have the right to choose whom you listen to.
You're right. I don't use it, and I don't promote it. But I don't think it's very clear to everyone who does that Ecosia needs you to click ads. Many environmentalists are also anti-consumerists, and I suspect would hesitate to use or promote this search engine if its reliance on advertising were made clearer.
A link to https://jpeg.rocks/ was posted here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25712301

This is based on https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg, which is a patched version of https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo
Thanks for the feedback. I hope to provide some more satisfying conclusions at the end of this series of posts - posting here was perhaps premature.

I think the difficulty with your reading is that Mises does not appeal to “social interest” or any related concept in this essay, and we know from his other writings that he sees welfare as radically subjective (the market order is held to be “efficient” in the sense of satisfying each consumer’s preferences, whatever those may be). Hence my footnote on Mises’ use of the term “efficiency”, which is as close as he gets to discussing welfare.

http://socialistplanning.org/posts/reckoning-with-mises#fn12
Extra-territorial enforcement is a different matter, though. A government on the far side of the world can say whatever it likes in its own laws, but if a business has no presence there, why would that business be under the foreign government's jurisdiction?

The EU's strategy with the GDPR, in attempting to make it viral so that businesses it could reach within its own jurisdiction could be penalised if they dealt with businesses it couldn't reach elsewhere, is a dangerous path to be following. Taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of strategy becomes a significant barrier to international trade and can leave businesses in impossible positions.

A better way to address these issues is for governments to make proper international agreements with each other on matters where they agree on the principles, so that businesses in any state that is party to those agreements know what the rules are, and the rules are consistent and enforceable throughout the states making the agreement.

Without such agreements, one would hope that governments of states that have not implemented some rule would protect their own businesses, including actively intervening to support those businesses if they were being "leaned on" to enforce the rules of other states extra-territorially. We really don't want a world where any sufficiently large political power -- the US, EU, China, India, whoever -- can unilaterally set rules that apply to everyone else as well.
Same here, TIL!
Thank you.

When we can afford it -- we will definitely run multiple independent audits to verify our privacy claims. At the moment there isn't any simple way to do it. You'll have to take my word for it.

We are currently not making money, but when we do we'll be very transparent about it including (if we reach that point), about interceptor purchases.

Feel free to send me any feedback/suggestions/comments to david at okeano.com if you find any quirks. Appreciate it :)
Basically any reply that buys you more time so that you can make an informed decision: this demonstrates you can act in the best interest of the company instead of blindly following CEO's orders in order to keep your post, with potentially disastrous consequences.
You understand you can make that statement about anyone right?
It won't let me comment on your longer reply below. I just wanted to say, this:

>>there are more ways to deliver a message than there ever have been in the history of mankind

really resonates with me - its a lot easier now then it ever was with "letters to the editors" or "public access cable" or whatever other medium you pick. Even getting a ham license and taking your message global is easier then before.
Show HN: Automatically Generating Algorithmic Art
Reducing the audience of these narratives can help with reducing their impact. I don't think this is a great solution, but not having people locked into alternate realities in the first place does not seem naive.
Transfer a Chat from WhatsApp to Telegram
Starbucks probably has a larger share of the coffee market than Apple does of the computing market.

Either way, Apple selling a bunch of stuff gives you no right to access their equipment. Nor does it make giving the government the right to reach in and compel Apple to do business with people and entities they don’t want to. That’s authoritarian, and if you think that won’t be abused by a later administration, I’m not sure what you’ve been paying attention to for four years.

If you think Apples so big that they have too much influence, then what you need is antitrust law, not the first amendment.
reading the comments and the links, I'd like to think about this a bit differently.

Instead of "working hard is Good" it appears that it's more like "Because I have worked hard and been successful it means that I probably have Gods favour compared to this beggar over there".

So working hard is the result from predestination (its already been decided who will get into heaven so we better do our best to look like we are blessed already and working hard and being successful looks like that ), and also a result from a kind of protestantism that advocates spending time intently working as a kind of devotion, and the kind of protestantism that pushes asceticism; saving money, not spending much, not giving cash to the poor but instead donating time and work to charities..

To say Catholics don't believe in hard work being good and only believe in belief isn't correct therefore. I suppose I would clarify by saying that they believe in doing good work but don't view being rich and successful (the end results of working hard) as a way to get into God's good books.
I think that’s mostly a measure of people having more money. I’ve been living in different Bucharest apartments for almost 20 years now, the last 15 have all been in apartments with AC installed, otherwise summer can become hellish.