skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We've banned this account for political flamewar. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it regardless of which politics they're battling for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. This is a site for thoughtful, curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest—not bashing enemies.
Not sure about AVIF but JPEG XL has exactly that
I always say 'bin' as 'bine' in relation to the folder. This is a hill I will die on.

It's short for binary. And a 'bin' is where you put your rubbish, not your hard work.
fstab pronounced F Stab, obviously a joke website left over from April first.
I want to see this also as a geopolitical move. We see online platforms growing, and for US products the natural growth is the following: US, Europe and Australia, then Asia, Africa and Latinamerica. What is missing? China the crown jewel. Is this move anti-Trump a way to set a precedent that Big Tech is pro China. Let's don't forget the ties of Apple and Facebook there and the need to access that market.
The article is a fluff piece but the idea it touches upon needs serious consideration. We underestimate AI at our peril. Consciousness evolves.

Can ‘code’ be consciousness?
I think of pwd as “present working directory”, but I have no idea where I got this from.

And, it’s always a shebang line :)
>September 30, 2020
Governments usually move slow and sometimes (most of the time) they can't react in time and they are after-the-fact legislations. It's NOT OK for companies to sit back and not attempt to stop that behavior. By doing nothing but continuing to do business with them they are essentially approving that behavior. Here's a tweet[1] with some screenshots of some of the type of conversations that are happening on Parler.

[1] https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1347987417052172306...
He snidely denigrates socialism and communism constantly throughout. Is anything that talks about communism with any nuance apologism?
> I've lived in Taiwan for a short period of time.

Are you the guy that keeps spamming blogs about "TSMC, chips and how taiwan is so important to the US" to HN?

> Furthermore, the Taiwanese people deserve the right to self-determination

Taiwan has 20 million people. Mainland china has 1.4 billion people. I believe the "self-determination" part is already settled.

> and our support if they decide to go their own way.

Nope. Let them settle it. We shouldn't have been involved in the first place.

> it's always been odd to me that the U.S. chooses to placate Beijing, at the risk of losing a reliable partner (Taiwan) in a strategic industry.

Are you serious? One is the second largest economy in the world. The other is taiwan.

Every week, there is some bullshit blog spam about how important TSMC is. Why is that? Who is paying for it?
Their actions are pushing us towards a civil war — making choices that have deep political consequences and that should be made by elected officials, not self appointed corporate barons.
Freedom of speech means that here is no monopolistic power (such as the government) that has final say on restricting speech. However, it doesn't mean that you, as a private citizen or free-market-participant, have to aid and abet all speech that is directed at you. If someone tells me the Earth as flat, I do not have to give his ideas equal weight if I do not believe they deserve it, and I should not be compelled to help him espouse his beliefs either.
valerie solanas comes to mind
> free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic.

Let me tell you a little story:

On February 27, 1933 communist Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag, the home of the German parliament. He and four communist leaders were arrested.

The event supported the earlier claims of the National Socialist Workers Party, that Germany was on the verge of a communist revolution and only majority by them could stop it.

At the urging of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, President Paul von Hidenburg immediately issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties such as freedom speech, freedom of the press, public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.

The government arrested large numbers of communists, including members of parliament.

In their absence, the Nazis and their allies, the Germany National People's Party, achieved a majority in the legislature. Exactly one month after the Reichstag fire, they passed the Enabling Act to help them against the seditious communists by giving the Chancellor the power to pass laws without parliamentary approval.

Soon after, President Hindenburg died and the President's office was merged with that of the Chancellor Hitler, making Hitler the head of state and the executive, or "Führer und Reichskanzler."

But......the important thing is that they successfully addressed the insurrectionists' attack on the Capitol!
If you want to connect your Twitter and Mastodon accounts and enable crossposting, have a look at this[0]. I also wrote a blog post[1] were I talk a bit about my migration experience.

0: https://crossposter.masto.donte.com.br/

1: https://rmpr.xyz/Migrating-from-Twitter-to-Mastodon/
For a more competent autocrat-hopeful, the military. Trump's biggest mistake (and our biggest boon in such a situation) is that he spent 4 years making enemies of the top brass. You don't become a dictator when the heads of the military hate you.
Every major news organization has a reporter working in the White House press room, that is in the building where Trump lives and works. At any time Trump could stand in front of them and talk or answer questions. Trump could put 100 cameras on him and address the nation on prime time television. And you really believe that Trump is censored?!
The problem is there's barely any discussion with these people who are being manipulated, incited to violence, due to the online bubbles they create. This inevitably leads their communities being banished and having to migrate elsewhere - where they can freely speak with whatever hateful, violence provoking or inciting comments they want - and they'll continue to more strongly resonate in their echo chamber until they're incited to violence by someone like Trump et al.

I also don't understand what tech companies are preventing from being discussed? The issue with Parler is they weren't moderating to delete violence inciting commentary - if Parler had done an adequate job of that then the app would still be accessible on those app stores.

More government control leads us more towards a CCP state, whereas the freedom of businesses to be relatively sovereign is a failsafe against potential tyranny - and where people are "voting" for the companies they support the governance of by buying their products, services - allowing them to earn revenues/profit to continue existing; yes, there needs to be even more competition to prevent oligopoly behaviour, and there is policy possible to help with that - especially what's needed is good data and network portability laws so people's online life is easily mobile, as well I believe there needs to be a mechanism that extracts more value from businesses that gain benefit from economies of scale for various reasons.
I have always “heard” F sick in my head for fsck
I pronounced the individual letters until I called Microsoft support one day and the automated prompts said something like "For Microsoft 'Sequel' Server, press 3".
Imagination Machines: A New Challenge for Artificial Intelligence [pdf]
By default, Go dynamically link to libc on Linux if you use networking. I believe because of a dependency on nss.

I recall it's truly static on MacOS though.
You've been using HN primarily for political battle. We ban accounts that do that. I had to go back as far as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24231151 to find a comment that was using HN as intended: for curious conversation.

I'm not going to ban you right now because that wasn't that long ago—but please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.

As for "HN is a liberal" [etc] - the other side makes the same dramatic claims about how your side dominates the site. It's pure sample bias, driven by the fact that we all vastly overweight the data points that we dislike. I've written about this at length: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... - and I could give you a list of hundreds of comments making exactly the opposite complaint about HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662497, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25434397, etc. ad nauseum.
I'd be far too worried about being incorrect when describing a derivation. I also studied physics not maths but the same goes for physics articles.

I think post-docs are probably better suited for accurate explanations but at the same time they are (at least, fairly often) not as good at explaining a concept using a simpler framework.

The other problem is that because different editors write maths articles, related concepts can use fairly different terminology or concepts with similar derivations use different derivations leading to possible confusion about how concepts are related.
They should ban gay wedding cakes along with Parler, then conservatives would be fine with this right?

Germany decided a long time ago that free speech has limits, if you tolerate intolerance it leads to fascism. History has proved that several times.

Personally I would love to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Parler from a devops perspective.

Were they just running ec2? In which case leasing a data center will be inconvenient but manageable.

If they were using more of the managed products then good riddance.

I'm curious if the devs at Parler will put it on their resumes when looking for a new job.
DYAC. It was indeed unintentional.

Hopefully there is no echo chamber; I was intending to write "ecosystem" in case it's not clear.
Does not matter, in any case -- straight into reeducation camps.

God Bless the Holy AI.
In my experience, 98% of the time, I don't have to think much about memory management in Rust. The other 2% of the time I am untangling some kind of tricky, arcane situation.
So are you saying that the world has stood still, and that western thought in general and America in particular have not had any sort of positive influence on the world since 1776? ;-)
> only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed

Woah, what?! No, this is entirely antithetical to "freedom of speech". The government should absolutely NOT be determining what is and is not allowed speech.

> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control

The market will decide right? Companies are made up of individuals. Their customers are as well. The past 30 years is evidence of that.
I feels so conflicted about this kind of deplatforming. I find the people ignorant and topics discussed there of little value. It's mostly just actual lies, misunderstandings, blatant propaganda, stupidity, circlejerking, echo chambers. It's shit, to be blunt. I find it endlessly annoying.

But I sorta think they should be able to have their space? I don't like the way corporations and governments build these huge marketplaces, make them more and more restrictive such that no one can really get huge market-share without them and then they start curating (censoring). I understand why they do it: image, ethics (lol), they can, network effects, control over product quality, increased community cohesion, customer comfort, "safety" (lol), legal (i don't buy this one) and so on. But it wouldn't be a problem if the internet remained decentralized...these big companies should never be in the position to have this power.

At a certain point you get so locked out that you can't even pay the bills anymore because even payment processors won't take your money!
>My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance.

How do you feel about #killallmen on Twitter?
You can be 100% accurate and be incredibly misleading by omission or overemphasis, that is what ‘balance’ is for and refers to.

https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/guidelines-on...
Companies dont want you to download it... They would much rather charge you every time you enjoy it.
I disagree heavily. The focus of this conversation seems misdirected, whether intentionally or not. It’s not about the fragility of morality as a system at all, which it of course is because it’s based on consensus. It’s about fundamental principles and upholding them, and how you prioritize those principles.

You seem to believe in upholding right to free speech, which, surely is crucial to the country. However, this other group you speak of is protesting their rights to life and liberty, which they are being actively deprived of by an oppressive regime. Isn’t it slightly unfair? What rights is the right being deprived of? Entitlement to a certain election result or a certain office? That opposes the very definition of this democracy. They have means for their voices to be heard and their issues to be heard, still, by the right’s representatives in Congress. Black people didn’t/don’t because law enforcement was/is being racist and oppressive in unfairly killing them.
Rust has a lot of great qualities but simplicity is certainly not one of them.
"Joe said "cat proc cpuinfo". Scott wasn't getting it so Joe said "no.. no, type cat slash proc slash cpuinfo" and eventually got on the keyboard himself."
This part really resonated with me. I always find it hard to tell commands to people. Anyway I never reach for their keyboard. I try to take the blame myself for not spelling out the command correcty, this way they don't feel mistaken and take a defensive stance.
Youth unemploynent + unstable region = young men with time on their hands that could easily get recruited and become rebels. So the gov't must be totally interested addressing the issue.
> A large portion of tech audiences fall into major Dunning-Kreuger[sic] traps. Because they understand something to an expert level

Which is in itself the Dunning-Kruger effect. A tiny minority of people actually have expert level understanding and knowledge. The vast majority of people who think they have expert level understanding just fail to recognise how large their field actually is.

You can be considered a subject-matter expert for recruitment and employment purposes, and it still never be close to the truth. For most practical business purposes it will be true, but it still wont be the reality.

I didn't recognise that distinction until after I had 12 years experience in my field, and met someone who absolutely blew my mind with their level of knowledge and understanding (and declared themselves to be a subject-matter noob).
I didn't say all evidence should be admissible, on the contrary, I was even quite explicit about this, I said: "excluding otherwise valid evidence obtained illegally".
I'll bite.

Censorship of social platforms is absolutely necessary and this is obvious if you think about the problem for long enough, and even more obvious if you try to run one. Spam is a form of speech. You will get DDOSed by bad faith actors selling viagra without censorship. Now of course that's not what people are discussing, but almost all moderation is censorship. Censorship is table stakes to even be able to have a public community beyond a certain size, an uncensored public community would just be static, noise.

If you look at the pure numbers only a small minority of (human) users actually get banned, and most of the censorship happens further down the moderation chain. What people are arguing over, in practice, is if maybe a fraction of a percent of users should be banned or not or should have their posts removed or not. Censorship is so pervasive it's not even recognized as such. The actual disagreement is over a very small fraction of users and rules that would in practice affect a fraction of a percent of users and perhaps spark a trend of self-censorship. Censorship of social media platforms is good, what's in question is if we're perhaps going too far, but the actual difference between peoples views when you look at things from far enough back is actually fairly narrow. Additionally trying to enable the average person to have "Freedom of expression" online while NOT engaging in censorship paradoxically isn't even possible.

The key then as I see it is to keep censorship as minimalistic as practicable, have the rules be well defined, and to empower user self-regulation. It's also a concern to avoid, as much as is practicable, creating community schisms where a group splits off and creates it's own filter bubble which I consider to be outright dangerous (A threat to safety, if you will). For this reason, but also for its own sake, I argue for making efforts to avoid tyrannies of the majority. Because of these priorities, I usually present myself as a free speech proponent since I always seem to be saying people shouldn't be banned or suppressed, but in reality I support broad and sweeping and even automated censorship.
> The events of Wednesday of last week changed my mind.

Changed your mind to support what exactly? That’s a little to abstract to even argue. Let’s talk specifics.

What did you think companies shouldn’t be doing that they now should? What epiphany did you have on Wednesday?

Is it just that Parler itself is evil and must be stopped? Why not advocate for full DNS removal as well? Advocate for their bank accounts to be closed as well.

Everyone keeps saying this is the obvious correct move, but this seems like a ham-fisted 9/11-type response where the cure is going to be much worse than the poison in the long term.
Genuine question:

You say you fear they’ll do so, but if they’re being forced out of society — what choice do they have but to build their own?
And I can't tell if you're trolling, for the exact same reasons you gave. They gave a reply that should satisfy your question, and you drilled down again because it didn't use your exact words.
>Mozilla opposed them in ways that feel more fascistic than anything they're claiming the "Fascists" are doing

Mozilla is still in favor of distributed social networks, but are aware that it can allow hateful groups to incite violence, an undesirable result. Nothing in that article supports banning any speech, or has Mozilla deciding what is or isn't acceptable.
This is one of the best comments I've read here LOL!

They literally described what it's like to be a left coast conservative.
This is where it gets interesting - are you suggesting private companies shouldn’t be allowed to set terms of service(s)?

Would it be acceptable for the state to pass laws that severely limits private entities to do so?

There’s lot to think about here. Free speech is good and all, but is it not really about free speech in relation to the state? i.e you’ll not be thrown in jail or persecuted for saying things.

Btw, if you follow policy just a bit bellow the surface you’ll soon find that “we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control” since ways back.
I agree that they are under no obligation to host speech they don't agree with.

Let's say if these companies are monopolies. Should they still hold the same power?
This kind of flipped a switch in my brain, that makes a lot more sense than the "trash bin" pronunciation.

However, I will continue saying "bin" because old habits die hard and "bine" just sounds wrong to my brain for no good reason :)
So you decided to go with the both sides argument?

Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?
This is a battle of the fundamental nature & limits of free speech vs. the fundamental nature & limits of private property.

Generally speaking, hate speech can be allowed free speech, but not advocacy or incitement of specific violent acts. As the platform owner, and absent additional guidance from courts or Congress, private companies have no choice but to make decisions about what can be done with their private property. No company that is not a "common carrier" is obligated to let their infrastructure be used for a specific purpose. If you don't like the choices they make, the root cause isn't with the companies, it's with the laws themselves.

There is a sort of slider here between speech & property. If you dislike companies controlling their platforms as they see fit & want the slider to move in favor of free speech, it moves against freedoms of private property.
they ban parler but are OK with hosting pornhub that literally has child porn content
In 2015, telegram started removing posts after the attack in Paris—but they’d linked attacks as early as 2014 back to telegram communications and recruiting. Even in 2015, attempts were half-hearted until a high profile expose (Vox) and Others like it ran.

There were never any calls for deplatforming telegram in this manner as far as I know; it would be like giving Parlor another 3-5 years to clean itself up.

I agree that the attackers need to be silenced, but this move by apple and google is unprecedented and unnecessary; if they are inciting violence, it should be dealt with legally, not via corporate ethics panels. Platforms should be responsible for content like what parlor presents, but apple shouldn’t be the who holds them accountable. This isn’t the cake shop declining to serve a gay customer, but rather the phone company pulling the plug.
That’s an amazing idea. I find I’m just pacing back and forth , kitchen to living room. That’s the only way I can focus on long boring zooms.
You may not be able to rationalize their thinking, but you do need to live in the same country together.

If your hope is that now that you've lost patience; they can be pummelled into submission, you may be going down an even darker path...

Some kind of concessions, and a demonstration that Biden is not what they feared might a good start.

Or.. you can have them banned off the internet, thrown off planes, fired from their jobs etc.. sounds like a good plan.
> high quality, accessibly-written off-line content by experts in the field to the Web

Where is this content? It sounds like you’re alluding to something obvious but I honestly have no idea, and would like to know where to find it if it does exist.
Hopefully there will be an AI Judge soon, so we do not need to worry about the ethics.
React.js founder leaves Facebook
It has to be balanced and accurate. You can be 100% accurate and be incredibly misleading by omission or overemphasis.

https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/guidelines-on...
I am working on this www.ezhuth.in.

This is a website I am building as a social media for my vernacular language(Malayalam), my main reasoning being

1. Facebook has a lot of Malayalam discussions and literature but they are lost past a few days, and it is very difficult to rediscover this content.

Basically we are losing out on quality content once Facebook has decided it is not viable to show a post algorithmically.

2. For vernacular languages niche content has largely been reduced to Youtube, but still there are no platforms for discussion on these topics.

3. his might sound generic but we often hear about stories of kids chancing on content on the internet and developing a passion for a subject, what are the chances this can happen if you are not English speaking?

We can learn from China on this, even though it is a population that is largely shielded from the rest of the world, their adoption of native langauge on the internet have allowed for proliferation of all kinds content to everyone.

4. Localisation is the future. Being able to use our own language has allowed a lot of people to explode on the scene and make a living - ask tiktokers.

I am not yet done with the features, but a priority for me now is to do translations to Malayalam and get audience coming.