skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-capitol-riot-communications-...

Bowser was part of the group calling for reinforcements at 1:30pm.

As we all know, National Guard (under orders from Pence) didn't arrive until 5:40pm. The National Guard's superiors are the DoD and the President, not the Mayor.

Approval of DC National Guard reinforcements was ultimately a job that was squarely in the Trump Administration's responsibility.

------

It is clear that everyone underestimated the scope of the threat on 1/5th. But virtually everyone who was "near" the Capitol was going full-on panic mode by 2:30 (when the building was fully breached).

Well, everyone except the DoD / DC National Guard for some reason. Hopefully that issue gets further investigated and we figure out what the hell happened there.
https://hackaday.com/2018/05/12/hft-on-hf-you-cant-beat-it-f...

With more traditional microwave for the last hop.
They may be having some problems [1][2] in some areas. They use anycast, so they may be working for some people.

[1] - https://downdetector.com/status/google/

[2] - https://downdetector.com/status/google/news/359823-problems-...
My definition of radicalized is pushed to violent action, not merely emphasizing support.
I don't see that as a good counter example. That sort of content should be illegal anyway.
So why would they send out an email taking a position on these two sites? And why did that email say that the block applied to all customers?

I think they are back-pedaling after seeing the public response.
You will not usually have nor do you need line of sight for HF radio. The radio waves are reflected by the ionosphere at various angles and heights, allowing the signal to be received at many different distances at once. Radio waves at the correct frequency hit the ionosphere like stones skipping along the surface of water.
It seems like some on the left think that listening to offensive ideas is the same as endorsing them. People in general are good at pointing out the flaws in others while ignoring the same thing in themselves.
Indeed. Fortunately for us free speech doesn't guarantee access to an active Twitter account.
Serious question if there's anyone with an appropriate background in the relevant law: how does this play with net neutrality and FCC regulation if the ISP is blocking Facebook and Twitter but not their competitors? It's not a free speech issue, but are there any fair dealing and business regulations that would come into play? In Canada, where ISPs are usually treated like public utilities, I believe that this would not be permitted, but I don't know the current state of Net neutrality in the US.
>These people are actively inciting violence.

Err, so what?, the supreme court has a pretty strict definition per Brandenburg. And I agree with the court's opinion there,

> "These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone advocating for it, especially from behind a keyboard, actually expected storming the capital to happen, and it seems like it only happened as a result of law enforcement essentially giving it it's blessing. As pointed out by your sibling comment, calling a group of people who mostly milled around the capital "insurrectionists" is just fallacious, and tells you how loaded this whole thing is. I'm extremely concerned that this spectacle is going to be used to curtail our liberties the same way 9/11 was used to pass the Patriot act.

I feel like I'm in crazy town when I see so much being done to stop "inciting violence". Isn't it ultimately the responsibility of the public to not act on such incitements? When a group becomes sufficiently disenfranchised the most radical members transition from trying to make peaceful change to calling for revolution. If the disenfranchisement continues unabated more and more members of the group will be convinced of the need for action. This is fundamentally why the U.S. exists, and I think it is the right of the oppressed group to self-advocate and self-determine.

So in that sense I don't think that anyone can honestly say that calls for violence are never appropriate. Any revolution, even a velvet one, is going to have some fringe of people calling for violence or it will never come about. Should western media have shut down the Arab spring for the same reason? What about #freepalestine? There were plenty of calls for violence against Trump, and nobody seemed too concerned. Should Kathy Griffin have been blackballed?

If we define this group of people as predominantly non-college educated, non-hispanic white males, then we are talking about a group whose deaths of despair (suicide and drug overdose) rate has tripled in the last twenty years, a trend that has likely intensified significantly during the lockdown [1]. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think they are killing themselves because they aren't allowed to be racist, rather I think it's because non-college educated rural americans[2] are being and have been marginalized.[3]

Perhaps we should try and lift this group up instead of grinding them down and using them as a scape goat for problems primarily related to wealth inequality.

[1]https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deaths-of-despair-depres...
[2]https://www.americancommunities.org/chapter/american-communi...
[3]https://www.the74million.org/article/solving-the-rural-educa...

e: formatting
I thought the capitol attack was largely planned on Facebook too..
But...that's what moderation is. Promoting some topics and pushing down others. Deleting certain groups which repeatedly break policies (which, by the way, are not limited to posts that call for violence). Deciding what is "orthodox" and what is not. This is common, even on this site. When a HN mod deletes a flagged thread because it doesn't follow the rules, are we all plunged into 1984 + Fahrenheit 451? When a comment is deleted and someone is baned even though they didn't literally call for violence, have they seized control of our thoughts?

The way I see it, Amazon (or Facebook etc) didn't censor Parler in the unilateral and totalitarian way you allude to. At some level, every company has to have the freedom to choose who they do business with, every person has to have the freedom to choose who they associate with. Amazon just said "no, I won't sell you AWS anymore". They didn't threaten Parler, Amazon does not have the power or authority to threaten Parler; They didn't and can't prevent Parler from choosing another provider. What's happening here is that Parler knows that no one else will voluntarily do business with them either.

Almost everyone in the industry has turned their back to Parler on their own. That cannot be censorship in the same way the lonely kid who no one wants to play with cannot be described as being censored in any meaningful sense of the word. Honestly I find it a worrying trend to be sure, but to portray individual free actions as censorship is to make the concept of censorship meaningless; It conflates the real dangers of authoritarian censorship with ordinary choices & biases that we take for granted every day.
I found this with a 10 second search on YouTube's parent company's search engine: https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/

Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? We’ve already seen how willing they are to take their ball to their own, private little country club when things get too hot for them. Crying “monopoly” doesn’t ring true here.

What’s the “free market” argument that says a private business should be forced to host hate speech, for free? What’s even the legal argument that YouTube is a monopoly, when DoJ has taken exactly zero action towards breaking it up?

Edit: light rephrasing
> For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government.

I honestly have no political axe to grind here, but I distinctly remember how 4 years ago it was a legitimate talking point on the losing side that 'faithless electors' (or 'Hamilton electors') should step up to deny Trump the presidency ([1], [2]). Michael Moore offered to pay the resulting fines for any Republican faithless electors [3].

To me as an outside observer those seemed like attempts to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government. However, neither the politics subreddit nor Michael Moore have been deplatformed. So I'm not sure the criterion you mentioned is entirely correct.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5gpmru/first_repu...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/meet-th...

[3] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-moore-appeals-gop-el...
> Come around to what?

When polls show nearly half of Republicans support the Capitol Insurgents, there are LOTS of things that Republicans need to come around to.

Come "back" around to the belief that the court is the final arbiter of disputes in our country, NOT whoever sends the most maniacs in a frenzied mob.

Come around to the belief that yes, they did in fact lose the 2020 presidential election fairly, as stated by every state and county election official, including the GOP's.

Come around to the belief that the US "peaceful transition of power" during presidential elections was in fact a good thing, not a centuries-old tradition to be thrown away in a futile attempt to install a game show host as dictator-for-life.

Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/01/07/nearly-h...
Your memory might be failing you:

CYBERPUNK 2077: Lies, Excuses, & Sycophantic Fanboys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mKYZVtjgoY

CYBERPUNK 2077 - Early Reviews & CDPR TOTALLY Misrepresented the GAME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko33FH1IItI

CYBERPUNK 2077: INFLUENCERS & JOURNALISTS Are Also to BLAME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJk5TJx6Hq4
Cartels are not “free market”, they represent a failure of the free market which legislation (i.e. government empowerment by guns) is supposed to solve.
It’s battery is 50% bigger than a model S. 150 kWh vs 100 kWh. Not really a 50% range gain like you are thinking. Just like you could build a 2 inch phone with a really long battery life, so can you cram a ton of batteries in a car. This should mean it is heavier than a model S (which is already 5k pounds) which has other implications.
'The market is paying Tesla to take capital': Credit Suisse analyst
Hi I'm a free market proponent, I'm totally fine with what's going on here.

Edit: My only thought is if people feel these companies are viewed as too critical to be self moderating than maybe these do need anti monopoly action to foster competition in the area. I absolutely do NOT agree with giving them any special statuses which would do the exact opposite of fostering competition.
> Telling 150 million people to sit down and shut up because their party happened to lose an election is a really, really bad idea that has no possible good ending for those doing it.

i do think you mean 74M? anyways i agree with you, it's a recipe for disaster. (and i'm not sure why you're being down-voted here.)

it'd be much more healthy to actively engage this cohort of people; allow them to present "facts" as they see fit and offer evidence to either support or refute their views.
Those laws are unconstitutional. Open carry in particular is not concealment. I'm not fond of people bringing guns to non-2A protests but there is a document limiting the government's power and every state ratified it.
That's your version of reality. Mine is different.
Erm, here is a photo of people wearing Trump gear scaling walls. https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/16/03/72/20463283/3/ratio3x2_1...
'The right' as a term literally comes from supporters of the nobility and the king, the ultimate representation of someone who is protected but not bound by the law.
They said they would block them for everyone initially.

Washington's net neutrality law covers home service.[1]

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/first-state-net-...
Millions of people in the US have served sentences of similar length or longer
>They went out of business within the year.

Ah the good old days where people actually had more than one choice of internet provider. I miss those days.
Because Republicans really have moved to the center on economic issues. The ideological "movement" strain of conservatism no longer has much sway.

You no longer hear Republicans talk about Medicare or Social Security privatization, Obamacare repeal, Dodd-Frank repeal, etc because they've moderated on the free market idealism.
The latest information is that there was no fire extinguisher

Do you have a link to a reputable source for this? The ones I read still include the fire extinguisher.

Also, if you think cops weren't attacked, think again: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/capitol-mob-violence-p...
It's their property right? Same arguments I hear for twitter, google, etc censoring.
I mean.. if their problem is not understanding the math of conjugation at all, then yes, they're pretty elementary and are going to have trouble with QM.

But if their problem is not being able to stomach the "just-because" explanations that every QM resigns to using to explain wtf complex conjugation has to do with reality, then I completely, totally sympathize. Learning QM consists of learning to silence your objections to the fact that none of the things you're being asked to believe make any sense.

It gets somewhat more scrutable when you deal with relativistic QM, where, at least, the terms in Schrodinger equation start to make intuitive sense (it's the first couple terms in the Taylor expansion of E psi = sqrt(p^2 + m^2) psi = m sqrt(p^2/m^2 + 1) psi = (m + 1/2 p^2/m)psi ), but then spinors enter the picture and all intuition goes out the window again.
Every post gets scanned. They detect things like blacklisted links in real-time.
Never OK but sometimes necessary. I'm sure you can at least imagine a scenario where it's appropriate to curtail speech to save lives, e.g. taking away an enemy combatant's comms, even if they're American.

Liberty is always opposed to security. How free we are depends on how worried we are. That's always the case.
I certainly agree that it's disappointing that people will so readily believe false and humiliating stories about somebody they don't like.

But describing it as "a new low" against the background of a violent disruption of Congress, with the intent of interfering with the peaceful transition of power... that's not a phrase I'd have thought to use. The mockery is disgusting and disappointing, as is the gullibility of its spread, but both are very common. The violence, by contrast, is genuinely novel.
EDIT: From this point people explain that there's no issue with RDRAND (but may be with systemd), and users don't understand birthday paradox: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/18184#issuecomment...
That requires you to learn about computers and only technocrats like bezos and Tim cook know that stuff.
> Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provide..." on this server.

Reference #18.4c4fXXXXXXXXXXX

Eh, from Europe.
I think Kimball has one benefit that single table doesn't have i.e. it's much more business intuitive. For example it's really difficult for me now to explain to our new hire why two completely unrelated fields are stuck in one table and one is NULL for 95% of the time.

The wide table thing is also kind of certified by someone inside of Vertica so I guess it does make sense. I'm not actually working in data team so I don't have the CS knowledge to prove or disprove it. Fortunately our new data lead is going to convert everything into Kimball so we are going to have solid proof eventually.
The article is accessible from the EU via MSN syndication:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/citing-censorship-...
Sure. Any argument for structuralism is countered by non-structuralist/post-structuralist.
I've been approached about various data engineering jobs over the last couple years and the job descriptions have varied wildly. It has been everything from:

1. SQL/analytics wizard, capable of building out dashboards and quickly finding insights in structured data. Oracle/MSSQL/PostGres etc. Maybe even capable of FE development.

2. Pipeline expert, capable of building out data pipelines for transforming data, Flink, Spark, Beam on top of Kafka/Kinesis/Pubsub run from an orchestration engine like Airflow. Even this could span from using mostly pre-built tools wiring together things with a bit of python to move data from A to B, to the other exteme of full fledge Scala engineer writing complex applications that run on these pipelines.

3. Writing infrastructure software for big data pipelines, customizing Spark/Beam/Flink/Kafka and/or writing custom big data tools when out of the box solutions don't work or scale. Some overlap with 2, but really distinguished by it being a full fledged software engineer specializing in the big data ecosystem.

So, are all three of these appropriate to call Data Engineer? Is it mainly #1 and people are getting confused? I would certainly fall into the #3, so I'm always surprised when people approach me about 'SQL transform' type jobs.
I don’t see a contradiction here. The point of classical liberalism is well-regulated capitalism. Economic freedom combined with a rule of law to protect the citizenry. You can want to regulate Twitter and believe they have the freedom to kick whoever they want off their platform without a contradiction.
You've touched on a huge problem I see with the US political system. Everyone is bucketed into one of two buckets. Everyone in each bucket must have all of the beliefs of the other people in the bucket. If you are in one bucket, you support Trump, think border walls are a good thing, support blue lives matter are anti LGBT and are anti-abortion. If you are in the other bucket you take the opposite views on all of the those topics and more.

For me it shows that the tribalism has completely overtaken US politics. If everyone was making up their mind independently or even semi-independently the odds of everyone in the same bucket having the same beliefs would be close to 0.
> But what’s notable is Intel’s scope here, with plans for hybrid chips that will scale far beyond simple mobile devices.

What does the author mean by “simple mobile devices?”

The reason Apple hit it out of the park was because the mobile devices were more advanced than any mobile or desktop computer, yet in a tiny enclosure.

I would think that scaling up to desktop or server machines with more flexible thermal requirements and tons of power would be where the discipline in mobile soc design pays off.
Uhh aside from the censorship topic, I’m not sure if you can argue that ISP == some website. To be honest, I’m not sure why ISP aren’t regulated as utilities.
I actually used some of the hardware you must be referring to. I never found any of it to be very good at all, and I grew up with access to both 8-bit (and later, 16-bit and 32-bit) computers and a few electronic typewriters. (contrariwise, I do have fond memories of the IBM Selectric, as does anyone who learned to touch type on one, I'm sure)

But I am utterly interested in what typewriter model you'd nominate as equal to the DOS + WordStar/Word/Sprint + PC combo of its era! If it's hardware you used and liked for some reason, that'd be something to hear about... not a lot of people reminisce about that hardware. (because it was horrible... ahem)
> Although parler was only used for hate

I would love to see proof of that completely unsupportable statement. Obviously all social media sites are used for hate. Maybe they were used a higher percentage of the time, I don’t know. But your statement does nothing to add to the discourse and does a considerable amount to harm it.
>This, “conservatives are turning into literal nazis” narrative is extremely toxic to public discourse and needs to completely stop.

I would never refer to a conservative who recognizes the legitimate results of our free and fair elections as a Nazi! Now the question is, why in the flying MOTHERFUCK do I need that qualifier?
Parler was not "designed to host right wing extremists", same way 1st amendment was not designed to provide free speech to "right wing extremists".

It was designed to provide free speech to everyone. And hypothetical right wing extremists occasionally use it same way they use telephones and supermarkets.
For more than a decade, we have seen how social networks let conspiracies and extremist views thrive and how they were amplified.

There is ample evidence that "listening" does not tame or squash these positions on these platforms.
Curious to know if ISPs inspect user agent. Can they block iPhones and Androids from accessing their internet?
I honestly think when many people talk about censorship being bad...they only worry if their own ideas are censored.
Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case.

Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.
You're behind the times. Fox News (and specifically people like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz) invented this weapon around the time of 9/11, but it's now commoditized technology and the Nash equilibrium seems to be that it just eats the entire media, at least when it comes to mainstream newspapers and television news networks.

A sure sign you are probably under its influence is if you see a clean partition in the way you mention. Those of us who see the propaganda for what it is, will try to convince you that you've lost the ability to recognize it in the narratives you agree with. It's hard to do, certainly, and nobody's perfect. And you don't have to believe us. I would say to apply Occam's Razor: could it be the case that the outlets you disagree with are transparent liars, but the ones you do agree with are the ones still applying, at least in general, journalistic standards? Or could it be that the incentives point in one direction, and the Fox News model has in fact eaten the world, but you haven't yet woken up to it? If one were brainwashed, seeing the world the way you do is exactly what you should expect. It doesn't mean you are, but you can't rule it out. It's a lot easier for me to rule it out when I can point to transparent lies from both sides, regularly, and dispassionately.

We're going to keep trying to explain it to you since if we don't become critical thinkers again we're fucked.
Please point out where AOC promotes violence in those tweets.
All of the philosophical complexity the author finds here can also be found in Newtonian mechanics. Papers are still being published today about the philosophy of Newtonian mechanics, using it as a gateway and simple test piece for the philosophy of physics or science overall. A common mistake among, I guess you could call them "rookie philosophers of science," is to look for the grandest examples of the problems they study, and overlook the simplest places where the problem is exhibited. The best philosophy deals with the simplest materials possible, no more than is required to build the case being made.
You should be able to read it here:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/citing-censorship-...
They were a liability not a customer.
The specific issue is CDPR promised X and delivered X - 20. Objectively speaking, cyberpunk is a mediocre linear FPS with some light RPG elements. Your life path basically doesn't matter. You basically have little control over the story. The AI is worse than a game from 2005. The game otherwise is incredibly buggy. You are welcome to enjoy it, but most people did not.