skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> the “developer speed above all else” rabbit hole with Python

I've become convinced that any language without a strong type system will eventually lead to a codebase which collapses under its own weight. Lately I've been working on a bit of data analysis in Jupyter, and even in that limited setting I find it hilariously slow and error-prone working with python. I would rate developer speed in terms of the time it takes to imagine and implement a correct solution. The correct part is key, because solving issues at runtime so so much slower than doing it at compile time. The only place where Python has an advantage is maybe in terms of how long it takes to type the code.

> it wouldn’t take that much longer to get a grip on Rust

This just hasn't been my experience at all. I've been programming professionally for over a decade, and I've dabbled with probably over dozen programming languages, and done real work in several: C/C++, Java, Obj-C, JS, Ruby, Swift, Python and Rust. I would say that Rust is an extreme outlier in terms of learning curve. It really took months to get to the point where I really got to that comfort point where I can just type Rust code with confidence that it's going to compile without looking a lot of things up, and even then I run into situations where I have to ask for help, and I feel like I am just scratching the surface with some more esoteric aspects of the language. In most languages it has been possible to reach that point in weeks.

I say this as someone who actually loves programming in Rust and currently reaches for it often as my "main language" of choice, but it is a complex language which is not easy to learn, and this is a real point to consider in terms of using Rust in a team setting.
> the US very likely could have become a dictatorship right now

Let's see again eight years from now :-(
Amazon included some screenshots of content from Parler that they said violated their ToS. I'd say look at the screenshots they provided then try to justify hosting that content:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
It means the Wikipedia article on Thalidomide can’t leave out the section on all of the harm it caused, despite the rest being well-cited.
>Everyone is talking about forcibly deplatforming them

Expulsion can be appropriate for dealing with people who harm society.

It should be used with caution but does have its place.

De-integrating (so to speak) may sometimes be a required first step before effective "re-integrating" can occur.
I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits, but I can at least say with confidence the following:

- Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted

- Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences

- Speech without a platform isn't speech at all

- Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak

- Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should

- The marketability of speech (for financially or politically) should have no bearing on whether it's allowed or good

I don't know if all of this is being upheld. I think a lot of interests are at play here. I have no easy answers or even recommendations other than that everyone think about what objective barometers they really think makes speech allowable or not.

(Edit: list rendered real bad)
You are arguing with somebody who told you Amazon has no legal right to cancel the contract. That somebody is not me.

> If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them.

"You fucked up. You trusted us". (C)

Parler was operating under naive assumptions that Amazon does not ban services for partisan political reasons. It was reasonable assumption in America pre-2021, but now it's clearly a different America. Where to participate in the internet, you have to pass ideological purity test. I can predict what happens next: Parler would be blocked by the majority of CDNs, payment processors and hosting/DNS providers. And you'll be saying "well, they are idiots for relying on the existing internet without considering the dependencies. They should have just built their own internet, their own banking system and their own payment system."

> While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful.

If it's unrelated, why mention it? To create an impression services with bad UX (which is not true btw, especially compared to Facebook whose UX is atrocious) deserve to be silenced?

> Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
We're just finishing up the database code to handle this, but most Skynet portals intend to operate on a freemium model. If you use Skynet for free, you get a certain amount of storage and a ratelimit on your usage of the platform, and if you upgrade to a flat monthly fee you get more storage and better access speeds.
Just about anything can be explained as being shaped by the church, or the military. Or both.
Yeah, looking at it from a purely SEO perspective always makes decisions look kinda shady, as in they're trying to game some algorithm in order to gain more exposure. Wikipedia's biggest SEO factor has to be the massive amount of backlinks it gets. Those are purely organic and happen simply because it is generally the best authority on most any topic. It's more of a testament to how genuinely good Google's algorithm has become rather than some masterplan by Wikipedia.
> The government does determine what is and isn't allowed speech

That's as hyperbolic as my omission is glaring. Yes, there are a few very narrow exceptions made.

I would say, though, that our 1st amendment rights are stronger today than ever.
> can this be used for piracy (movies mp3 etc)? What about really nefarious stuff like CP?

How can it be private if it's possible to check what the content contains? If it's private you can't tell which network packet contains CP and which cat videos.

> Do we know who is responsible and is it possible to report and take down links?

How can you report it if you haven't viewed it?
If you've view it and then report it, how do you think would that work out for you?

> Also does running a node involve you in anything unknowingly?

If it's censorship-free then you serve all content unknowingly.
Intially when I started reading the books, I found some useful stuff. After a while as you said, you realize the vast majority are all basically following the same template and aren't all that useful. While there's some gems in the noise, the vast majority I find are the noise
It's a wake up call for republicans.
Stop blaming fake news and alike.

Internet became liberal minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming.

Build the venues to reach people.
Invest in media that speak your language.

Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control.

Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
Unlikely. The next square-like-unicorn could still use an el-cheapo Bluetooth audio for the same thing in the same way (or some other Bluetooth protocol like a keyboard). It won't be quite as cheep as an audio plug, but it will still be cheap enough for the cost to be dominated by other things.
Your argument makes sense, but I'm grasping for help understandingone thing.

> it's associated with a long history of serious exclusion and unfairness

I might be thick now, but could you explain the association, and how using it means that we condone this history?
Sounds like you have a thoughtful and nuanced rationale. I'll have to think about it.

For now, I'm wondering what the effect would be, if we were all, e.g., still using the Lenna image in things we publish. Would that be discouraging to people, regardless of what nuanced rationale we could in theory give for why we continued to use it?

Also, when inquisitive children read ahead and learn on their own, and come across these articles, would they, e.g., pick up on and be influenced by outmoded, restrictive gender roles?
Bodyweight HIT are pretty ideal in that situation. They are short, "interruptible" if baby needs something sooner then anticipated, can be done next to baby in same or adjacent room and require no setup.

For workouts I tried several apps from playstore till I found some that suited me.
actually, according to rand paul, they are doing what private companies should be doing and not what democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing.

As I understand him, private companies should decide for themselves who they serve and if we think they are behaving immorally, convince our circle not to give them business. It's not the government's job to say who they can and cannot serve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-...

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.
Yes, it's often pronounced that way in my circle of friends, as a way of bashing MySQL, after all, it makes one squeal in terror. Although this started in the late 90s, back when MySQL was pretty awful. These days it's pretty decent.
No. Ethics refers to rules and their practical application. Such rules can exist for any number of regulatory concerns and often define social norms given time.
^^ This the kind of user you don't want. Someone who uses your service but thinks you're charging too much. You have to ignore customers like this who demand that you charge something that won't feed your employees, because there will be enough customers that will pay what you want, or you just don't have product market fit.
I actually can't believe anyone says "etsy." If they ever do, I'm gonna be confused momentarily. And I'm not gonna follow suit, I'm gonna say E T C. If I ever get a friend.

PS I also say "libe." As if shortening the word library.
I think this is also about the level of knowledge about what you are doing... if Scott didn't know about /proc/cpuinfo, it is more likely he wouldn't know to put the slashes.
I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct.

Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.

Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.

With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.

Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.
I think that private entities being able to limit the speech that is performed on their property is an expression of their own free speech, and should be protected by the right that protects that speech from intrusion by the government.

I also think that us being forced to rely on private platforms for public discourse is a grave threat to democracy. There must be public forums that are strong enough to be viable and legitimate places for the majority of public political discourse to take place without relying on private institutions.
It is for the same reason that anyone ever nudges anyone else about pronunciation, spelling, or grammar: speed of communication.

If you pronounce "/etc" as "et cetera", then it will add a step in me parsing your speech ("Oh, he means 'etsy'").

Second, now I have an awkward decision to make when speaking back to you. Do I adapt my pronunciation to yours for the length of this conversation? Or do I pronounce it my way, causing the extra step in your translation of my speech, then also causing you to wonder why I am saying it differently, furthermore causing you to consider whether to change your pronunciation to mine, if nothing else to end this extra thought process every time?

Also, if I adapt my pronunciation to yours, I guess now I need to remember to say it your way every time we talk forever, and say it Henry's way when speaking to him, and now I have this whole table in my head of various pronunciations for various individuals.

And then what happens if I am in conversation with you and Henry at the same time? Do I say things your way, his way, or my way? And what do you do? And what does Henry do?

---

Or we could just stop, agree upon a common pronunciation, and move forward at the normal speed of conversation.

---

To clarify, the tone never should be condescending. This is a small matter. Therefore the tone should be light.

The pronunciation that is deemed "correct" is usually the one of the majority. So it is just an attempt to get everyone on the same page. It strikes me more as "inclusive" than "anti-inclusive". If I were "anti-inclusive", then I would silently let you say it your way, smile inside, and then talk behind your back to Henry about what a newb you are.
Skynet can be used for any sort of data.

Public facing portals and hosts serving unencrypted data are of course responsible for the content they serve.

People can upload content in two ways: either by using a public facing portal such as siasky.net or by spinning up their own portal client (Sia node) and communicating with hosts directly via the distributed network.

It is possible for individual portals and hosts to take down links and stop serving that content, for example after accepting copyright infringement requests.

It it also possible for anyone to spin up their own portal and keep content pinned as long as any host on the network will accept it. For example, skyportal.xyz is another public portal. Same goes for hosts.

The Skynet (Sia) model aims for thousands and thousands of hosts spread geographically. It becomes extremely difficult to delete any piece of data from the network entirely as long as someone wants to make sure it stays up.

Erasure coding redundancy ensures very high resilience from any single host going offline.
We get somewhere between dozens and hundreds of DMCA's per week, and we comply with all of them. We can't actually take content off of Skynet itself (similar to how you can't actually take content off of IPFS), but we can have our portal (https://siasky.net) refuse to serve content with known-infringing or known-abusive hashes.
What is a “violent upheaval”?

Without a specific definition, such as “civil war resulting in 620,000 deaths”, they’re fairly easy to predict.
> As an EFF member I think they made the right call here.

They didn't. They chickened out. The ACLU was more vocal in its opposition to censorship. That should show how cowardly the EFF is being right now.

You falsely made it seem like EFF only deals with or is concerned with government "suppression". That isn't true. Most of EFF dealings is with corporate "suppression".

Under normal circumstances, EFF would have been far more vocal. But since they are extremely biased in this case, they chose to be anti-free speech.

"The EFF was active in the United States presidential election 2016 because of online phishing related to the controversy over fabrication of election results. J. Alex Halderman, a computer security professor at the University of Michigan, wrote an article that was published in Medium in 2016 stating he thought it was advisable to have a recount on some of the election results from states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation

Don't you think EFF's belief in 2016 election fraud had anything to do with their lukewarm defense of Trump's free speech here?

They have a long history of questioning voting results, but only when republicans win...

"The EFF has long been an advocate of paper audit trails for voting machines and testified in support of them after the United States presidential election 2004."

I generally think EFF is a worthy enterprise, but it's obvious political bias is the reason for their pathetic "support" for free speech here.
Might be worth filling a bug with Mozilla. I'm pretty sure the files I used don't carry colour profile info that would cause this difference, but I've been wrong before.
I don't it's that far.

It's make a reasonable attempt to prevent illegal / violent content and don't purposely create a system meant to fail and flout that's the whole intention of your app (and in Parler's case brag about it to the NYTimes )
> The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign

Can you explain what you mean here? I wasn’t aware that tech companies worked with one another when choosing who or what to ban.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

No one is flooding HN. A lot of us are non-American and programmers who understand what the recent events will mean in geopolitics. Everyone can see that GP was talking about what this move will mean in general terms. Don't assume we are trolls just because you don't like our comments.
Just because a thinking falls in to a pattern of fallacy doesn’t mean that what I claim is wrong. You can check the video and read what I claim, think logically and ask yourself what are the cases where someone could check box for option A then fill another box. And honestly that’s just minute nothing of the many irregularities if you do go though the links.

Also, I’m not citing random links all of these show that there are many irregularities and there is suppression of information and free exchange. I choose only four out of thousand cause I don’t have the time and I don’t get paid.

Again, I dont live in America so Trump winning or losing directly doesn’t matter to me.
> If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (via competitors).

Like Gab and Parler! Oh wait...

I generally agree private businesses shouldn’t be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to, but we’re talking about near monopolies that in many ways wield more power than governments.

Apple and Google each have a monopoly on app distribution on their platforms. Facebook and Twitter combined effectively have a monopoly on social networks.
All files are stored encrypted. You can use it for privacy as well as storing child pornography.

Edit: Above is about Sia. Apparently Skynet is different.
No shoes, no shirt, no service.
Can you not understand that the complaint is about the “correct” pronunciation being unintuitive?
I'll add this brief comment as a reference in case anybody wants to research it more.

There are 20-year cycles that I've heard of recently.

For Cultural Marxism in the US, 1970, 1990, 2010. Those are roughly the generational periods of new counter-cultural US university professors.

There's also a related cycle starting with Betty Friedan's Marxist-Feminist book, The Feminine Mystique, in 1963 and each generation after of about 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Friedan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique

When Marxism, Marxist Feminism and CRT and BLM overlap, you get the amplification and extremism you see in the left in 2020, like AOC being an elected yet open Marxist, and antifa fascists.
That's certainly untrue, at that time access to any sort of mass communication was even more controlled by a few private actors. There were not all that many major printing presses out there and a limited number of publishers would have truly controlled your only access to dissemiating information to a significant number of people besides actual in-person speech. And they certainly did choose what they were willing to publish.
> I haven't seen any reference regarding any email service

It was in a former title of this page, and if you'd followed the link and read the tweet you'd see it was about a service called Campaign Monitor:

> Email Marketing | Email Software | Campaign Monitor

That's the strap line for their website. Like many here, I often read the comments, sometimes without reading the linked site, but when commenting it does help to follow the link first.
Several trademarks exist for skynet, none are registered to/owned by Disney
https://uspto.report/Search/Skynet
I cannot judge if it's biased (in the way meant in this thread), but there is a rather weird statement right in the first section, "Factors that affect decisions":

> In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10]

First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly.

Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.
On every technical talk, there's at least one presenter bragging about previous experience at FAANG. No exceptions, always 1 slide.