skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Indonesia is the worst. Recently I attended a webinar that give free t-shirt for early attendees. I received whatsapp from the courier, telling me to pay USD40 for custom and taxes for the free t-shirt. I told him, you can keep the t-shirt (sent from India).

When I told this to my friends, they said it's normal. Sometimes they buy books and got taxed twice the price of the books.
Dupe?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959 (680 comments)
If something significant had actual happened to Silicon Valley, you’d have seen his kind of ban four years ago. These bans are big tech playing it safe.
I’ve always interpreted it to mean “actionable” or “there’s a shared responsibility in these.” I believe that’s how it is usually intended.
Great questions!

I didn’t study power electronics so I’m not in a position to confidently answer your first question however I’m sure if you do an online search you’ll find additional information addressing it. I found an article [0] that goes a bit more into depth, have a gander and see if it’s of any help.

For some odd reason, the popular hair clipper manufacturers, who are based in the USA/Canada, have a smaller selection of professional devices that they produce for the global market. So if you’re a barber in the UK for instance, you either have to wait for them to introduce a global variant of your desired clippers or you buy the cordless version if available. That’s why the conversion kit is a godsend if you find yourself in that situation.

[0] https://www.kccscientific.com/50hz-60hz-guide-frequency-converter-power/
The book just came out a few days ago. You can see a talk about the book's topics by the author here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbgukiJy6hY
What if all the quantifiable tests we have are AI achievable, but the tests only cover an insignificant portion of human intellectual ability?
Disable javascript for that particular page, or open in incognito, clear cookies, etc. Basically any method works.
I'm not sure how China sinks a US carrier killing thousands of US soldiers and the situation does not escalate to a nuclear exchange. Sometimes I think a whole generation has forgotten that we still live under the threat of global annihilation in under 15 minutes.

The schools used to have duck and cover drills to prepare for nuclear attacks. This may have made people too afraid of the word nuclear and thus nuclear power is not possible in the US. Now there are "stranger on campus" drills instead. I wonder how that is warping the minds of the present generation.
Wikipedia is my primary knowledge destination!
> Do you really want to entertain this ridiculous idea?

Yes. Of course. Xi invading Taiwan would involve killing Americans, including American soldiers. It’s an attack on America and on our ally. If they use nuclear weapons and we demur, it’s a failure of deterrence. America has given its word to come to Taiwan’s defence. If we don’t like the implications of that promise, we should withdraw it.

Keep in mind: a nuclear barrage (or ersatz nuclear, with nuclear-scale tonnage from non-nuclear warheads) of military assets is different from bombing Beijing. And being open to nuclear retaliation is different from attacking with nuclear weapons. Appeasement didn’t work for Hitler. I don’t see why we think this time would be different[1].

Nobody wants this. But a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with nuclear weapons would be clear escalation by Beijing. Hopefully, level heads prevail.

[1] Not equating Xi with Hitler. I don’t think Beijing seriously plans on invading Taiwan. But if Xi does, we’ve miscalculated somewhere. And these comparisons become more apt.
As was "Daily Stormer" getting kicked off of Cloudflare.

Or 4chan kicking off Gamergate.

Which are probably better examples to discuss.
Right, because mathematics-wise the deflating asset (if we’re picking on bitcoin specifically) is programmed to do so until 2040 or so when the block rewards run out for miners.

The currency (or asset) will continue to outperform the dollar or any fiat currency because it is setup that way to scale inversely and inverted-like through the magic of fungibility.

No one no where ever created a means of trade accurate to the ten millionth. Go look it up I’ll wait.

Just because something scales inversely to your currency that doesn’t make it a ponzi, it makes it mathematically and theoretically possible; as the market itself has proven for nearly a decade.
It's almost like you want a free and unfettered press? I thought they were the enemy of the people.

You lose twit.
I think there would be a 99.9% consensus that such activity should be deplatformed. In fact, I think even the perpretators would say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
What about calls for imprisoning people? That off limits? Because there are thousands and thousands of posts out there on leftists boards where leftists with delusions of grandeur are talking about who they are going to imprison on the right. That constitutes violence.
Repeat after me ... first amendment starts with 'Congress shall pass no law' ... neither AWS or google are congress
By leaving "totally cool" undefined, your point is ambiguous. There are legal, moral, and social aspects here. The discussion will be more productive if you will clarify.
I think EFF should look for improvements to their communication on this topic. They need to be providing much more practical leadership guidance.

The ideological goals don't need compromise -- but the practical reality is that our society _needs_ an organization like EFF to be at the forefront on these topics -- advocating for better abstractions to help shape how we as a society should think and deal with these complex issues. EFF shouldn't be effectively silencing itself by becoming a voice that just repeats platitudes. This article to me felt like the right wing response to gun violence events "we send our thoughts and prayers but let's not politicize this tragedy".

In particular -- there are simple ways to avoid worry over the "slippery slope" associated with defining policies that apply different rules to different users -- you can espouse policy frameworks that are explicitly parameterized by impact (impact is a bit fuzzy to capture in truth but conceptually clear -- and simple proxies suffice to communicate the concept -- in most cases the number of followers is a reasonably close conceptual proxy for a social network).

If you have 70 million followers and you say "let's punish immigrants" it's just simply a different thing than if you say the same thing and you have 10 followers -- pretending there "must not exist" a different framework for responding to events that occur on such vastly different scales is not practical and it's actually a failure to provide good advice here on an ideological level -- because we _know_ that these events are different and project meaningfully different risk profiles onto the world.

There is not a clear ideological reason to falsely pretend that "the same thing" is happening when two users with such vastly different impact publish the exact same sequence of words ... The threat model for "danger of communication" is based on impact and so should be the policy frameworks aimed at managing these risks.
Of course they want to, that is why they are doing it. They'd prefer to keep the network effects going because they know an exodus would undermine their for-pay videos.

If they weren't happy, they would delete the videos on demonetisation. They don't have to pay for hosting. They know these videos are drawing in a valuable audience.
Really dude? ISIS?
Wouldn't having all speech be controlled by giant platforms be batshit?

It isn't anyone's job to rescue Parler. They're locked into a cloud provider, and that was their own doing. If they can't survive, tough kitty.

However, an open internet, with the ability to run apps outside of app stores (needed for new peer to peer stuff to thrive), and use of crypto would mean someone could make a Parler. Mastodon and Matrix have had major controversies.
This is going to sound cliche at this point, but the turning point really was Facebook. Instead of yelling out into the void, you were now compulsively sharing everything with friends and family.

Plus, with Google, sites weren't individual webpages link to each other by rough strands, but all connected to a central repository -- Google. My parents for example, think that Google is the internet, and all of the content is hosted on it.
The Great Bifurcation of Social Media will likely include infrastructure providers too!
A platform for people to build real-time multiplayer games / multi-user apps with ease.

Developers write JS code to only handle the rendering and interaction. Separate game code written in a DSL will be parsed and run on the server. A SDK is provided to help the client side communicate with the game / app server.

A dirty PONG demo at https://dev.byog.live/games/pong

Very early SDK at https://github.com/byog-live/byog-sdk

The PONG demo with more organized code at https://github.com/byog-live/byog-example-pong

A playground was under development to help devs understand the platform and this is where I burnt out https://play.byog.live/

It's been a few months since I last worked on it. Sigh.
On the other hand I don’t let my kids watch YouTube (even using YT kids and with my account to bypass ads) because they don’t do enough moderation of extremist videos. A few clicks leads to a lot of provably false BS.
Protected from persecution by the government, which means it has absolutely ZERO relevance to the actions of a private company that has its own right to free speech. They can ban whatever they want! They could say “if you don’t use the oxford comma GTFO” It is their platform. If your solution is to nationalize Twitter, FB etc. then well China is right over there....

Also and because people were apparently deeply failed by their civics classes in HS, “publicly traded” does not mean a company still isn’t private. Private means not owned/run by the state.
> If the invading party can assert total air superiority

That is the hard part. Not only would you have to deal with US carrier based air assets, but also air assets from bases in Japan and South Korea. In addition, Aegis based cruisers also have a heavy anti-aircraft armament.
Vector looks amazing.

Wasn't really happy with any of the existing solutions and ability to collect and export both metrics and logs is just brilliant.
>Whatabout Facebook

Facebook doesn't use AWS, and at least attempts to moderate calls to violence.
2017 - 'Researchers found that 77 percent of Wikipedia articles are written by 1 percent of Wikipedia editors, and they think this is probably for the best.'

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-eli...
Then feel free to discontinue business with Amazon.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec...
the ST70 is a great piece of design, and quite affordable.
Looks like this effects nmap verisons >= 7.90 according to this bug report https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914445.
Wikipedia was originally intended to be a smaller sandbox area for Nupedia, the expert-authored encyclopedia from Bomis (Jimmy Wales's company). Of course, Wikipedia turned out to be much more successful.

But there were other collaborative Internet encyclopedia projects that didn't do so well. Benjamin Mako Hill has a paper exploring what made Wikipedia succeed while the rest failed:

https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf
That is an exceptionally poor argument, verging on complete bullshit.

If that's anywhere near the best case that can be made, Trump is toast.
Ummm. So you're here to say there should have been outrage when ISIS was deplatformed? After the capitol situation I guess I can see the resemblance between ISIS and right wing American extremism.

Weird hill to die on, but you do you man.
Take note: The interface hasn't changed much, a good thing.
It is your opinion that ISIS shouldn't have been "deplatformed"?

Did you know it is a crime in the US to provide services to terrorists?

18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists
> for some reason.

More arable land than nearly any other nation, comparatively thinly populated, early leader in mechanized farming, steady consolidation of small family farms into large corporate ones for many generations.
That's mostly just because you don't hear about the deep technological and material innovation investments. If you're generally in the loop though, you'll know.
Does feeling sick after consuming a lot apply to shakes as well? Only thing to keep an eye on with shakes is your appetite would be satisfied but you’d need to still take in your meals
You have my vote, sir.
Not me specifically, but everyone generally.

Nevertheless, your naivete is like a newborn deer gamboling through a forest.
You might be right. If ISPs start banning domain names, there'll have to be some kind of solution that's like BitTorrent or a blockchain.

This is why many in government are already coming after encryption itself, because they know ultimately without encryption there is no freedom left at all.
Ok, so you agree there are limits on my free speech right? You, yourself, just explained that there is some line in sand that must be drawn? After all again, by your own argument, I have no right to distribute child pornography. Clearly, you, yourself, don't fully believe that there is no argument for censorship, suspension or banning, based on our 1st amendment - you are not willing to defend me of my right to distribute child porn.

You must then agree, by the framing of your answer, that this is no longer a conversation about free speech and about whether or not Trump incited violence. It's clear that you understand that if it were Trump promoting violence, that my comparison wouldn't be such a stretch. So can we agree to not waste our time discussing the merits free speech?

Google and Apple are deplatforming Parler for inciting violence - and enforcing no moderation towards users that do so. If you want to argue that "inciting violence" is not "clearly illegal" then I'm willing to watch videos that support that case, but you should make it clear that is your position, and not a general one about "free speech".
I would be surprised to see Alibaba or Tencent host them. Are they known to host "extremist" content?
I don't personally use FB for a multitude of reasons.

But they are self hosted, so AWS isn't going to be banning them any time soon.
Where did I say I was certain?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/

The more people are involved, the more interest the state has in private property.

This is why for example we have employment and health laws.
It's because lots of people are using Wikiwand extension (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wikiwand-wikipedia...).
Yeah bash has 64 bit signed integers and bitwise ops on them. I'd be interested in seeing a floating point implementation. I think it would be pretty much identical to an implementation in C with signed long.

echo $(( 2**63 | 1 ))
-9223372036854775807
It's for another rover, but I can't help thinking about it :)

https://xkcd.com/1504/
Wow, it's nice to see this type of response from ACLU.
Its going to see adoption is widely distributed content first - its why Google and Netflix are so gung-ho on it, they see the same file downloaded millions of times and in those circumstances bandwidth savings are huge over the encode times.

Eventually the ubiquity of hardware acceleration plus Moore's Law should make even lackluster hardware encoders generally available so average joes can use AV1 without needing to wait a day for a half hour of footage.
He says in the third paragraph that the normative claims in the 2nd paragraph are true insofar as they risk shareholder value, not because they violate the Constitution.
>They don't need to change the rules. AWS can already terminate you at any point

That is literally my point, the 'rules' don't matter. The post that I responded to claimed that somehow there was no slippery slope here because they have rules after all.

>Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like

Well, that's how it currently is, but this doesn't apply to all businesses. An electric provider can't just cut you off because they don't like you, maybe it'd be a good idea to implement something similar for services that provide equally critical digital infrastructure?
That’s my goal this evening.
"First they came for Alex Jones"
No it absolutely does not.
I do worry about the consequences of Twitter, Reddit, et al banning the more marginal content, though.

When The_Donald was on reddit, it was more easily monitored in one place. People who used it at least were forced to confront evidence daily that they weren't holding the majority opinion. And grownups from the platform could remove (and report to LE) the worst stuff.

When you ban those people from mainstream platforms, you do deny them some of an audience. But you also encourage them to make their own echo chambers and congregate elsewhere, which may be on the balance worse.

Now we see the same things happening with Twitter / Parler and Gab.

It's definitely hard to know where to draw the line. Karl Popper and all that.
Their CEO said:

"There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products"

So he explicitly says they didn't use the vendor lock-in features, but the "rebuild from scratch" comment sort of contradicts that.
Taiwan does have major benefits for the US today given the current power balance between the US in China. But in the future when the power balance continues shifting as it has the continued defense of Taiwan will be a major liability. I don't believe the US should unilaterally withdraw from Taiwan tomorrow, but I do believe that it should plan for a more stable and peaceful future where it does not have to defend a sphere of influence off the coast of a China even stronger than today, what path should be taken to reach that future balance without creating a second Pacific war, and if a war is necessary how to minimize casualties and damage.

As for the worry about appeasement, that policy failed with Nazi Germany because the geopolitical balance of Europe required that they annex the land and agricultural capacity needed to become a major power. Any strategist could foresee that Germany would not have stopped at Austria and Czechoslovakia while leaving the farmlands of Poland and Eastern Europe. Appeasement was also to buy time for Britain to rearm after a devastating WW1. I do not believe this to be the case for China because there are no valuable agricultural lands to annex around them, and because modern technology has changed the nature of power projection where the winner is not the one with the bigger army but the one with the smarter army. Annexing economically unproductive land with unfriendly inhabitants is a very dumb move, unless it's holy land for the nationalist rhetoric of reunifying the Chinese nation and rejecting foreign pressure.

Lastly, China's neighbors have every right to be worried. But how does spending for their defense benefit your typical American citizen who's more interested in sending their kids to college than sending them to die for the maintenance of an overseas empire?
Parler is an astroturf social network founded by the funders of Trump’s campaign, Brexit and other such things. It’s not an alternate social network someone decided to run some day.

This does also mean that if it doesn’t die right now, eventually it will when the funders get tired of it.
> would rather see it destroyed than become part of it?

Very very few people want to have the system destroyed. Especially if you don't push people out of the system, like banning these people in social networks.

Trump voters did not want the system destroyed. They believe the election was rigged.

There is enough evidence of election fraud or election abnormalities. Though I believe not enough to change the election outcome.

It should the job of democrats (and everybody) to investigate, convince, and speak transparently about all the issues, in particular, prosecute people responsible for problems, rather than repeating "orange man bad", and radicalise Trump supporters.
I think the problem for me is the monopoly status this all reveals about the companies involved (Twitter, Amazon, etc.).

If you step back a bit too, there's another issue I have, which is that it seems to me these companies are coming down hard against the idea of free speech. Let's look at it this way: some group believes the Big Social Media Companies are being politically biased in a way they disagree with, in part because of active moderation that reflects decisions by that company about what's "correct" or "incorrect". So they say "hey we're going to start a new social media platform that we don't moderate." This gets used by violent extremists.

Then some other Big Tech companies tell this new company, predicated on unmoderated speech, to moderate their speech too or they will cut resources.

As others have noted, plenty of violent behavior has been organized on Twitter or Facebook, and it hasn't received the same sort of punishment and ostracism. So why Parler? Because some groups on it are supportive of Trump? Because it's the US government? It's hard for me to take appeals to quashing violent behavior seriously when they're so arbitrary in their application at some level.

At some level, it doesn't matter to me, because there's another argument, which is that the platforms should be very removed from the content on them, like a phone company. They could be promoting that, and instead they're going hard in the other direction, which is to support heavy "moderation" by monopolies. I don't want big business "moderating" speech, or having that much power to do so.

My political inclinations are very different from Trump or anything in these insurrections but I don't like the way it's headed, and I don't see the gay wedding cakes as remotely the same.

If there were three wedding cake companies in the entire English-speaking world, and wedding cakes were a universal requirement for getting married, I might feel the same. In fact, in some ways I do feel the same, but I also would say maybe there should be a lot more wedding cake companies.
This is true for what the government can do legally that infringes on your right to free speech. Yes they can violate your first amendment rights in that case.

However, this does not apply at all to private companies. They could, theoretically, have ridiculous rules “Everyone must refer to themselves in the 3rd person or we ban you” and it is totally legal because it is their platform. 1st amendment applies to private companies only to guarantee their OWN right to free speech.
You kicking someone out of your house doesn't change the fundamental balance of society.

AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
> EFF shouldn't be effectively silencing itself by becoming a voice that just repeats platitudes.

I don't follow how this is tantamount to silencing itself. Would you explain?
I think it's the west's obsession with exceptionalism in media. It can make people feel like nothing but perfect or better is good enough, and they can feel like others will think they are silly for trying yet not being perfect.

Similar self sabotage happens when someone with good taste in a topic tries to get started in the topic themselves. They have the eye for what is good, and what they produce isn't good yet, so they give up.

The best advice I can give for fitness is to hold a stubborn conviction that the gym is for getting fit, not being fit. You are exactly where you should be if getting fit is your goal, and almost everyone there was or is in the same boat.