skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think what the above poster is reacting to is the distribution of news sources on this chart. It makes it seem like MSNBC and OAN are equal and opposite. I consume news from a great many of these sources. The only actual leftist news source I recognize on here is Jacobin. The New Yorker and MSNBC don't have a lot of content espousing the ideals of socialism and communism.

Meanwhile, you'll be hard pressed to find any daylight between the news sources in the "Right" column and Trumpism.
Or they wanted to do it sooner but they were afraid that Trump might get angry and come after them like what he did to Tic Tok?
Get free 30k instagram followers now
How about “people over process”? Yet we are slaves to Agile Scrum process and procedure.

Double talk.
You know, stories don't just get to the front page on their own. If people stop upvoting them, they won't make it to the front page.
I'm inclined to agree across the spectrum. However, I imagine Twitter wants to present an image of balanced moderation after recent domestic censorship.
There are bad-faith actors on the left. This isn't just kids disagreeing though, this is one of your boys helping push the mom out of the house so the boys get preferential treatment. It is acceptable in times like these for people to make an ethical stand.
I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding about what the processes that go into vaccine trials are. I've seen people talk about all this long-term post-trial monitoring that is getting skipped and then have people who've actually run studies comment and say that's not something they've ever done.

Honestly, people skipping the vaccine don't really "matter" in the near term. We have more than enough people willing to get the vaccine for many, many months, so if people want to risk reaching immunity the hard way that's their choice.
> Here's an important question: would it be a good thing or a bad thing if it was very difficult to make plans involving violence on the internet?

These sort of simplistic quips reveal that either:
not much thought has gone into what your saying, or
what your saying is a propagandizing effort to conceal ulterior motives.

Does it elude you that this heightened concern in quashing all discussions of violence seems to be rather targeted at a certain segment of the population?
Are they the only ones that "plan violence"? Or the only ones where violence originates from?

If your goal is saying nobody "should be able to make plans involving violence,"
then you're saying nobody should be able to make plans of any sort without being surveiled,
so that a determination can be made as to whether those plans involve violence.
Who's doing the determining? What if the violence is ostensibly to an end the determiner believes is righteous?

The issues at hand are not so simple as your comment suggests, and it creates a feeling that you're trying to pull one over on people.

There are issues here that needs addressing, the events at the capitol yes, but an equally if not more important issue of how do we map old notions of private property and public property/infrastructure onto socio-techno society where these notions are converging? How do we bring the rights and norms of a healthy, functional, non-repressive society from the pre-internet world to the post internet world?

Violence pre-internet did not elicit calls of "ban all telephones," or "ban them from the telephone network," or "confiscate their printer."

We've barely begun to form the language to talk about these things, and to take in the scope and complexity of the issues arising from the way society and technology have evolved. Glib comments of "violence is bad," make it harder to discuss in a productive way.

Violence is bad. The violence at the capitol was bad. And the violence that rocked American cities all summer was bad.
Great concern about quashing all discussion of violence was curiously absent this past summer? Well, discussions of it were jeered, quashed and censored unless you were praising it.

Is that a conversation you'd like to have?
What?
He said he watched them storm in and instead he provides something he saw after the fact.

Look, I am currently combing all of the video from the event for faces in a bid to help identify people who were in the capitol. That guy was NOT on any live stream. This the original claim of “saw it from being glued to the TVs and monitors” is a false one and I challenged op to find an example in the stream that he watched. Instead he provided a photo op from Twitter. You yourself even cut off the part where i set the goal posts.

Regardless when I release my project this week you will see that no one was “clearly armed” as they walked through those doors. This was a travesty, but it is IMHO just one big false narrative like DC burning in May (the original goal post I replied to)
If HN is primarily a US platform, and the Capitol belongs to all the US people, then it seems to me to be of general interest to confirm in a single post that an investigation is being prosecuted and with some vigor.

And given the weakness of the initial response, it seems important for the Law and Order element of the Government to demonstrate that they are taking this part of the investigation very seriously. Unusual action by a US Attorney perhaps, but reasonable in this case IMHO.
Quoting your third link

> Does YouTube create extremists? A recent study caused arguments among scientists by arguing that the algorithms that power the site don’t help radicalise people by recommending ever more extreme videos, as has been suggested in recent years.

why are you misrepresenting your sources?
When she was Secretary of State, Hillary famously quipped "We came, we saw, he died" [0] in regards to former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He was sodomized with a bayonet and executed in the street [1] by US-backed rebels after Hillary convinced President Obama to bomb Libya [2].

On a side note: the US bombing of Libya, and Hillary's remark in particular, is seen by some as a watershed moment in North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons [3]. In response to international pressure, Gaddafi suspended Libya's nuclear weapons program in 2003. The subsequent US/NATO bombing of Libya and Gaddafi's brutal death supposedly convinced the Kims that if they ever gave up their nukes, they'd be vulnerable to the same type of foreign intervention and overthrow.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Captu...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clint...

[3] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-the-for...
I could go on about my loathing of Caps Lock.

When do I hit it? Only on accident.
CEOs and other officers typically have schedules to sell stock, precisely to avoid a situation where selling lots of shares might be interpreted as being a sign.
I agree. They have a $3.5/month plan with 1 core, 512MB, 20GB and 1TB out that's hard to beat.

Depending on the use case you can mount an S3 bucket as local storage or integrate with the API and serve the images directly from there (either via one-time tokens or using hard to guess UUIDs).

If you want others to setup their-own quickly, you also need to consider providing some CloudFormation, Terraform, etc.
From the page you linked,

There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. [...] For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted definition of fascism.

I recognize the definition I gave is different from how most people define "fascism", hence the disclaimer. I will however reject the idea there is actually a single precise meaning to "fascist". It has become heavily overloaded and is primarily used as a derogatory expression, something that dates well back into the 20th century. [0]

By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

Coming from a very leftist man who fought against Franco's very classically fascist government in Spain for the anarchists and communists, I don't think he said this to protest the far-right from being called mean nasty words.

[0] https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...
If it makes you feel any better, I blame Facebook for a lot of issues in the modern world, and I'm glad tech companies are finally doing something about some of them.
A VM/container setup is the way to go, with as much as possible shared from prod setup processes.

Specifically, it should be very automated and repeatable to bring up an environment, either from the last working state (i.e. to boot the vm) but also to bring up a fresh environment - potentially following a teardown/destroy.

I quite like Vagrant for this - it's multi platform, works across multiple providers (i.e. you might use HyperV on Windows, Joe might use VBox on Mac, Bob might use VMWare on Linux, Sally might use LXC on Linux) and has quite a healthy range of plugins to extend functionality.
The Tongs of Chinatown
> If there’s the chance that someone can multitask at a meeting easily and very effectively, maybe they don’t need to be at the meeting?

Speaking from personal experience, you often don’t have control over this. If I don’t attend meetings I get invited to, it’s seen as a lack of interest and being disrespectful. So I attend them to show my face, and then just do my regular work.
And if I don’t, then people stop inviting me all together and assume I’m not on the project anymore. That leaves me with little choice.

The whole thing about “leave meetings where you’re not needed”, only really works when you’re in a position of power.
Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol if they were put in the same situation. Perhaps the people who looted the Capitol would have looted storefronts if they had been mad at what they represented. There's one way to look at it where you have a generalized trait of not caring about following the law when you're surrounded by a large group, a trait that some people have, and that can be activated whenever the right circumstances arise.
Then again, the other side voted for Biden, so it's not like we've got stellar options here.
All of them have pretty similar ToS to AWS. They really don't have that many options. And no, going bare metal is not great either - colo / ISPs can deny you service. (which if they're trying to be sneaky they may find out after buying hardware and transporting it)
“Enjoyed”, past tense, while they were openly plotting terrorism and insurgency.

Once they executed it, that stopped (mostly, though people—including here on HN—are still arguing that they shouldn't be taken seriously.) But, had they been taken seriously when plotting murder and Insurrection in the open, it could have been disrupted before they swarmed the Capitol, or even showed up in D.C.
I agree, they really need to replace that product. It's not built to the standard that users expect from AWS. They have burned a lot of goodwill on that one.

That said, it's only truly necessary for Lambda and while it's frustrating and painful there, it's usually not a complete showstopper.
>For someone with such deep knowledge of the law you surely must know that a person can be considered a criminal only after being convicted by a court. So in this case the punishment was carried out based on allegations only.

You're absolutely correct that in the US no one may be punished by the state without due process. But Stripe isn't a government and refusing to do business with someone doesn't require a criminal trial.

Or are you claiming that Stripe cannot choose its customers unless a court has convicted that customer of a crime?
Even if they're talking to each other about it, there's no racketeering or other criminal issue involved when this is the companies enforcing their established ToS. Getting together and saying "hey I think this latest incident really shows we should pay more attention to ToS enforcement" isn't racketeering.
How Artificial Intelligence Is Transforming Businesses
If someone did, how would they answer you? If someone answers to say yes, they're clearly lying because they're using the Internet.
> You are building up an incorrectly narrow vision on what a coup actually looks like, then using that to declare this to be a non-coup.

That's fair enough. Living in the present, we usually have a blind spot about how present events relate to others in history. It's likely that some peasant revolts throughout history were just as stupid and chaotic as this one.

However, the events on Wednesday were particularly complicated. There were many factions and ideologies present. There were MAGAs, QAnons, "Federalists", neo-Nazis, COVID-deniers, Blue Lives Matter supporters, Boogaloo Bois, Proud Boys, Moms for Trump. There was but one shared allegiance—Trump.

There were five separate raids into the building, each as unorganized and chaotic as the next. Not a single rioter inside the Capitol was seen brandishing a firearm (I did see a few outside the Capitol though, via live streams). Many of the rioters were destroying things, but even more were marching through the hallways and rotunda "saying their peace" (from interviews I saw later, many thought they were still legitimately protesting). While there were a few dozen paramilitary types among the mob—or to stop the "coup", as they see it—their intentions were closer to fantasy fulfillment than a coup. One of the "zip tie guys" was there with his mom.

There was a lack of organization, little actual violence, no realistic attempt to seize anything, let alone a realistic chance to seize power in the first place. Throwing "attempted" in front of "coup" does not change the fruitlessness of the proceedings. In hindsight, I don't think even the worst case scenario would have changed much.

Regardless of the criteria we use to determine this case, I argue that it's not clear cut, and the use of "coup" and "terrorism"—as many outlets have—to describe the whole affair, especially before the dust has settled, seems like an overreach. And it's exactly the kind of thing that Trump supporters are constantly accusing the "mainstream media" of perpetuating. That's why it's an uprising, revolt, insurrection, seditious riot. All of these terms are accurate enough for now.
The private entities are not the justice department. They are not the judiciary. They are not lawyers and they are not juries. They do not require criminal conviction before taking action. Your question is irellevant.

But to give you a partial answer anyway: Many criminals are never convicted. Many _known_ criminals are never convicted, due to lack of undeniable proof. Some criminals are convicted on lesser crimes, just to get them off the streets. There's plenty of evidence to support the position that Trump is a criminal. He may never be convicted but not because he's innocent.
Using scare tactics to force someone to “choose sides” is not the hallmarks of a classical liberal philosophy.

Please stop escalating things with hyperbole.
your idea isn't good enough to be this condescending
The problem for permissive alt-platforms is that if the mainstream platforms expand their definition of bannable undesirables (call them witches for short) then all the witches will go to whatever platforms are still available to them (the permissive ones). This article details nicely how it all plays out:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...

>The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.

>...

>The equilibrium is basically what we see now. The neutral gatekeeper institutions lean very liberal, though with a minority of conservative elites who are good at keeping their heads down and too mainstream/prestigious to settle for anything less. The ghettos contain a combination of seven zillion witches and a few decent conservatives who are increasingly uncomfortable but know there’s no place for them in the mainstream.
Benedict predated the shift in Catholic practice of only priests drinking from the chalice. In his time both priests and lay members would have needed wine.
precisely. literacy tests are banned by the civil rights act.
This is pretty sad, the four years of college easily will be the easiest years of socialization and dating a young person will ever have. To have at a minimum two of these years taken from you, is to lose something you'll never get back.
This is also the kind of thing we need to be able to talk about without getting caught in our feelings. I generally am just lamenting that this is where we are.
There were three separate bonfires in DC in May. In that case, DC was also burning back then from angry mobs of protesters.

My point is the narrative. Take a step back and observe and claim the wrong done by both parties instead of saying one is right and one is wrong.
I believe both of those things. I'm confused by the contrast you're drawing here, because the reason I believe them is the same in both cases: many participants made angry, public declarations that violence was needed and they'd like to see it happen. Questions of how many nonviolent people were involved, how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
I don't believe I can time the market.

In 2008 I learned my lesson. I had switched jobs with options that would expire 90d after I left. So I exercised them & put a decent chunk of change in the S&P500 somewhere in late summer.

Of course, this was just before the '08 crash, and over the next few months I watched as my investment was cut in half. I didn't see, but I hold off investing more. My only regret? Not investing more.

Earlier this year, after COIVD hit, a lot of friends started to sell. It was obviously too late to avoid the initial damage, but would avoid any further losses.

Me, I just kept buying. I vest stock from my employer monthly & the proceeds go to the S&P500. I'd be doing it for years, and having learned my lesson in 2008, I stayed the course. I had no idea what would happen. I was fully aware the market could drop further in late 2020. But since my time horizon is a bit out there, I figured I'd be able to recover.

It ended up a pretty good year for me, whereas not-so-great for my friends.
Can you picture Congress funding any sort of public platform that would be used for porn and spam, and extreme politics of all kinds? That seems very unlikely to ever happen.
There are three million graves in the Middle East over the lies and murder of the US Government, yet no one is calling for an embargo of the United States.

This concern is a mirage of a geostrategic struggle.
Out of curiosity and for the sake of comparison- to what extent did other campuses handle the situation similarly or differently? I'm especially curious about Berkeley since they're also a top-tier program in a similar region, but those with insight into any other California campus would also be interesting to hear from.
I agree, there are different flavors and interpretations, which my article did mention. It gave what I'd label to common or core features of most fascist states. I'm sure there's infinite possibility for variation and different implementation details, including the means of controlling the economy and exercising power over others through economic means.
Probably not, but like I said, I'm not, in fact, black. Like I said, I'm familiar with the Veil of Ignorance, so you can assume I also know affiliated concepts.
This started about 2014-2015 ish, but it really got going just after Trump's election in 2016. There is a leaked video from Google with mass crying post election, and the organization then vowed to prevent it from happening again. I suspect other tech companies were similar.

Throughout Trump's presidency they have been constantly fighting Trump since, rather than trying to stay in his good graces. So I don't buy that it's about power.
Too bad they vote for the party making it worse, though seems what they really want is coup. That won't end well and in good policies.

Explaining everything by race is also a dead end.
This is an informative counter-example to those presented in the article. Thank you for sharing.
It's getting banned because of the politician's fallacy, and people with conveniently placed levers capable of being pulled. Nothing more, nothing less.
Parler isn't publicly funded, nor does it serve a unique purpose.
I believe section 230 only protects you from civil suits, it does not protect you from criminal charges.
A channel called Innuendo Studios chronicles this tactic and many others in a series called The Alt-Right Playbook [1]. I found it enormously helpful to understand the mentality and tactics of a group that kind of doesn't make any sense.

[1] The Alt-Right Playbook: Control the Conversation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
> just that both sides tell blatant lies.

This is the old both sides are equal argument which is wrong.

Can you please give a source where a democrat President wanted to "find the votes by putting pressure on election officials or when he told violent protestors that they are good people and the President loves them?
Yes, I'm very sad. This is a hard time. All the best to you and your family.
No password.

Software written by nerds for nerds.

Yeah, different time.
I feel that you think of the interviews as if they were a competitive programming contest.

If I needed a DivRem function I'd just write it in, `import Math` optional. In fact I probably wouldn't remember the exact name of the function and would've just 'created' a new one: `Tuple<int, int> DivideWithRemainder(int dividend, int divisor)`. You can just write signatures for functions like that on a separate side of the whiteboard and invite your interviewer to tell you if they want to see any of them implemented.

I would advice this as a general approach -- split things into (reasonable) parts and implement them in order of importance. In one interview (Amazon) I ended up implementing every small thing I parceled out. In others my interviewers seemed to appreciate that we both care a lot about the `solution flow` and the `technically hard` parts and not at all about `DivideWithRemainder` or `import Math`.

I got offers from most of the places that I interviewed at.
Professional organizations, uncontroversially, regularly set limits on what kinds of topics can be considered for discussion. If I pitch a talk on homeopathy to the American Medical Association's next conference I fully expect them to reject me. Even if I was a fully credentialed M.D. - much less someone with just an undergraduate degree - I wouldn't expect them to compromise with me.

Why do we not treat our general discourse similarly? Why don't we demand a minimum threshold based on, say, the same criteria we use in a court of law: internal consistency, causal-based, preponderance of evidence, etc. If one can't meet this minimum threshold then the others incur a penalty: being robbed the time and attention for those ideas that meet and exceed the threshold.
True enough. I voted for "not Trump." That just happened to be spelled "Biden" on the ballot. :/