skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Totally on board with #1. An indirect fund from donations is a good way to divorce fundraising from behavior (click-bait won't attract many charitable donations). In fact, I'm beginning to think non-profits are a good way to fund social network services while avoiding exploitative advertising and rampant data collection.

#2 isn't too bad, but how about only listing information related to the content? I don't care about the author's political leaning for an article on good travel destinations. I might care about which countries they or their family have lived in (e.g., a South Korean immigrant comparing trips to South Korea and Japan).

For #3, it should be an alternate position, not opposite. "Showing both sides" is how we've perpetuated climate denial. There is much debate to be had on the topic, but showing the "opposite view" too often leads to cranks being given air time.
That's not what Dunning-Kruger means.
Last I checked there’s a zillion TLDs wholly privately owned, even if all the registrars won’t have you it’s a whole ass internet out there.
I don’t think privacy is tenable. I think we could eventually Physically engineer ourselves to be more cooperative and less driven to harm others. This is achievable, but privacy is not stable, is unnatural, and because it is so hard to come by, striving for it creates in my opinion needless scarcity.

Trying to avoid harming others is also not tenable, but a policy of avoiding harm is capable of being followed with soft penalties, and I think neuroticism can be avoided. I think striving for privacy and it’s preservation is inherently neurotic, though it can be short term successful policy in the presence of others who would harm, exploit, or subjugate us.
this one gets me _all the time_. I really am just trying to figure out where I am! Please let me use the default provided filename!
The entire rationale for section 230 was to allow online services to exercise editorial control over user-generated content — to not be a neutral host of all legal content — while also not holding them civilly liable as a publisher with certain narrow exceptions (but also leaving them criminally liable for anything that would carry criminal liability.)

So what you are suggesting is so e kind of doublethink blending support for 230 with something conflicting with 230 is, instead, exactly just support of 230.

But the choice to sell books (e.g., distributors) has, like the situation of online UGC service providers, always carried lesser liability than publication, but the choice to carry or not carry particular books is still a First Amendment activity. The idea that it's not your own free expression if it doesn't have exactly the set of legal liabilities traditionally associated with the publisher role is bizarre and indefensible.
I might believe you if this were the first time I have seen something like this happen. After all, it was such an enormous, public incident. But it is not the first time and it will not be the last time either.
.bit domains are domains by the Namecoin network. Little is known that namecoin was one of the first altcoins. Long before ethereum and litecoin. They use a blockchain to decentralise DNS like technology. You should have a look at it
Multi-decade concerns start out as immediate concerns. If you only care about freedom when it's easy and convenient to protect, you just plain don't care about freedom.
You vastly underestimate the complexity of the human genome and also assume transsexuality is _all genetics. Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics.

Sex is bimodal, by definition parents can't define a "right body" in this regard.

And anyway, at that point of understanding and manipulating human biology, "people" will likely moved beyond limiting categories such as 'sex'.
> certain algorithms are more intuitive if implemented imperatively.

FWIW, "Dancing Links" is a wonderful technique that would be worse than pointless in an immutable language.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0011047.pdf
Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts.

Its always interesting that I get into these discussion with some people who hold a position so strongly, yet unwilling to do any work to be reliable.

Do try though, if you crack it there's genuinely a market for the solution.
>If these people get violent it's big tech's fault for banning them and the media for ridiculing them.

This is immoral, and dismissive of personal responsibility. If these people protest, it is arguably the fault of big tech and the media. If these people get violent, it is their fault, unless big tech and the media are literally and personally committing physical violence against them (which is the key difference between this and the BLM riots).
The notion that a platform is responsible for what I say on it is still a problem for decentralized 'instance' based networks like mastadon, the burden of removing content the culture of the day finds offensive moves to the local hacker who decided to setup an instance and host their friends.

I want to be fully responsible for what I decide to say, if I break the law, that should be entirely on me.

I want a protocol that allows me to host my own content on my website and let other people in the fediverse 'like', 'comment' and 'share' it.. So 'social media' becomes less about a service that does hosting and more about a client that does the aggregation and interacts with others I'm following
This seems very likely. At this point tech companies hold more power than most governments. It seems only right that such a powerful entity should be managed via the democratic system.

Facebook has the power to sway elections, especially in smaller countries.
Gamma effects can happen with derivatives of any type. For example with swaps and some of the leveraged etfs that hold them.
Oh good, eugenics.

> Look how long its taken for gay people to be accepted by society. Not decades, but centuries. Transgender people don't have that long.

You might wanna read up on actual history before winging it. We've been around since time immemorial. Nothing new here, we've been variously celebrated, tolerated, and eradicated by societies throughout history. The last big purge was during the holocaust. Is that the side of history you wanna be on? Oh right, the eugenics thing. I shouldn't presume.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
Reproduce or Die – GoL variation
If you requires them to write down or print, then there will be people just not do it and still lost their data all together.

If you just infer it from user password. Someone is definitely going to use weak password and get cracked in seconds.

If you requires a strict password rule to enforce strong password, someone is going to forget it and lock them out of their account. Because they only use this password here and there is literally no reason you use it the second time(most people only login from 1 device. Unless it is broken, you are not going to login the second time).

Requires a physical device is also a no go. Because devices can break. Unless you have another backup, you are screwed.

I am not sure there is a method that is secure(that don't lost message by accident) to most of the users.

Lost messages and contacts is way more risky then your message may be seen by CIA to most users, I believe.
No one thought that flight was impossible. Birds were known in the 19th Century
What is this question? First - I don't have a probability estimate. I simply recognize the fact that some significant part of the populating tried to overthrow the government.

Second, you should be careful conflating Wall Street with the stability of the country. That's not how our monetary policy or economic system work.
Alex Jones claims to have paid for the rally that preceded and instigated the riot, the one Donald Trump spoke at asking rallygoers to march on the Capitol. Candidly, I'm not interested in hair-splitting beyond that; my point is simply that Jones is closely aligned with the rioters, many of whom idolize him (as you can see on TDW). The idea that Jones is somehow in a radically different political cluster than the Q people and the Proud Boys people beggars belief; your evidence for that would have to be powerful, and would not be on "banned.video".
How can budget OTAs offer prices that are 25% of what the airline charges?
I run under NAT, like most Internet users in the US, although my gateway has a static IP.

No clue why the LAN drops connections without keepalive traffic. I need to get up to speed on using WireShark to diagnose dropped connections one of these days, as I actually have a couple of dropped-connection issues that need troubleshooting.

Typically I'll get a connection timeout every few days, even with keepalives, and even with a hardwired DHCP address for the MAC in question. Connections with no traffic tend to get 'cleaned up' by somebody after a few hours at most.
> You cant really be using a letter from the company that dropped them as a source.

Sure you can. That letter almost certainly was vetted by Amazon's legal department.

Not everything is a grand conspiracy.
> But in true Dunning-Kruger style, we don't know what we don't know

That's not D-K, but Rumsfeldian Uncertainty.
Wasn't AR15.com already a safe space?
On a side note, I'd like to say I'm a big fan of this blog theme the author has going.

It has a kind of homey feel thanks to the owl and the little + symbols in the background wallpaper
> obviously we will be able to recognise it.

There is no basis for that assumption, as you’ve never encountered a superintelligence knowingly.
No, why would you make that leap?
Twitter technically doesn't, but they're close with their all-but-mandatory phone number confirmation, given that many countries now require government ID to get a SIM card.
What I learned in two years of moving government forms online (2018)
I think these days no games use BitTorrent anymore since it’s easier to distribute your own files now and users do not like unexpected large amounts of data usage which can slow down their other applications and use up their data cap
Fun fact: very few directors or VPs at Ubiquiti. Very flat organization
>People who don't care about being lied to like that don't need to be oppressed, they will convince themselves of anything they need to believe all by themselves.

This is exactly the psychological fault exhibited by people who are trying to justify the very real events at DC.
I wonder if high frequency sports betting is a thing.
Did Twitter and FB's newsfeed exist when the NY Times was spreading their misinformation? (For context - were they promoting what they were told by the gov't, or were they caught lying on their own?)
They have a worldwide monopoly. If countries can't enforce their law on these platforms they will likely ban them on their territory. No Nation want to forgo their sovereignty to US corporations and delegate to them what is fair speech. Expect their algorithms to be under scrutiny as well.
I used to be hardcore freedom of speech believer. I believed data, truth, and logic will always win. Then I met people.

Seriously, when I lived in my bubble with fellow geeks, it seemed nothing was worse than censorship. I think a censorship by a government is still wrong.

But think like this, in social situations, people stop inviting assholes to their homes. And if they don't stop, then other guests start to avoid that host. So why cannot businesses avoid shitty businesses. Is it really censorship if your local coffeeshop won't let you put a your band's flyer with sexual images? Is it censership if you brother don't want you to bring up some controversial topic at a dinner party?

I would not want to do a business with Amazon if Amazon was openly doing business with ISIS. Not many people would like their business partners to be Nazis.
The point about the rain example is that it's meant to be something on which there's a clear truth, a demonstrable truth. In this sense it differs dramatically from most of the important issues before us as a society. But it's precisely because of this that it gets raised as one end of a spectrum:
what does/should journalism do when there's a clear demonstrable truth but "some people" dispute it?

That doesn't provide a guide for how to handle cases where the truth is not clear, where there is obviously legitimate grounds for disagreement.

But it's supposed to mark one of the spectrum. Many people would say that journalism has failed badly at the end of the spectrum, by taking things that are clearly true ("it's raining") and behaving as if the skeptics deserve to be heard.

Obviously, the skeptics feel otherwise, but is that relevant and if so, how much attention should we pay it?
That's a pretty silly false equivalence. Supporting Bernie Sanders poses no harm to anyone. Refusing to wear a mask on a plane does. So does planning a terrorist attack.
1945--1985 was arguably the high point. G.I. Bill and a rapid expansion of public university systems (inspired by the Sputnik scare --- see California's Master Plan by Clark Kerr), along with low or no tuitions. The tide began turning in the mid-to-late 1980s with rising tuition and a greatly increased reliance on loans.
Agreed. There would be a lot of benefit in countries having their own local services that understand their culture better.
Jamming is illegal.
This exact issue is actually what prompted me to switch to Kubuntu/KDE. It's still not perfect out of the box, but it's matched my expectations way better than recent versions of GNOME have.
The article itself never defines "messages" and, from context, it seems like they referred to users' [public] posts as "users' messages" -- not DMs/PMs.

EDIT: A clarification on Twitter from ~9h ago:

"since a lot of people seem confused about this detail and there is a bullshit reddit post going around:

only things that were available publicly via the web were archived. i don't have you e-mail address, phone or credit card number. unless you posted it yourself on parler."

https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1348666166978424832
I never made the argument that no application should ever encrypt anything at the application level. Password managers are very niche uses.

"secret servers" or key-management systems are just fine using TLS imo. I helped draw up the design for what is now the aws secrets manager. At the point you're reasoning about TLS being broken you might as well be focusing on detection, monitoring and key rotation because the whole internet is coming down with you.

> I attended a talk at QCon SF 2019 where the speaker advocated use of application-level encryption (even in web apps) by default as a form of defense-in-depth. I was skeptical, especially since client code itself has to be delivered using TLS only (and thus a successful TLS attack renders further defenses worthless).

defense-in-depth is a weasel word. security isnt a bunch of layers that can be reinforced as such; often things that are referred to as 'defense-in-depth' cover specific characteristics of one protocol over another.

For example, in password managers as you mention you end up with application level encryption. But this is because TLS doesn't provide the guarantees they want of server blindness, and some resistance to bad TLS certs installed at the OS level (a dubious security boundary, but regardless...).

> But it does seem that application-level crypto allows a lot of networked devices (besides the application servers themselves) to be rendered zero-knowledge concerning most application and user data. This allows us to trust those devices less.

This may well be true in niche cases. In reality, there's not a lot of businesses out there who will overengineer their systems to know less about their users. zero-knowledge applications are unbelievably subtle to make really work, and it's very easy to fool even experts in adjacent security fields that an application is zero-knowledge in some respect when it isn't.

I'm digressing. Application-level encryption in 2021 is very rarely what's wanted, and the existence of niche security cases in entirely security-focussed products doesn't discount that.
Ask Your Developer
Apparently not, it had a dependency on a domain registrar with different expectations about what they were facilitating.
Indeed, and the Schrodinger equation is well behind Quantum Field Theory (the most modern quantum theory).

In QFT, particles can be interpreted to not exist, only fields -- particles are just a fuzzy (imperfect) abstraction of "field excitations". Particles may exist in the path-integral formulation of QM however. But it known among physicists that particles or fields don't define what is real -- what it matters is that the models predict observations. It is irrelevant which model is 'true' -- if they give equivalent results, both can be said to be [indistinguishably] correct (in their relevant domain). The examples go back a long way too, e.g. with the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of classical mechanics (wildly different but compatible mathematical formulations) -- so the 'model paradigm' has been known to physicists for a while.

I think in physics 'truth' is understood to be a (possibly non-unique) model that in principle would provide an exact prediction under ideal conditions, for a limited experiment. In our reality the ideal conditions are never going to be met. For example, we cannot ensure that a system has every atom in a certain position before performing an experiment (in fact the known quantum principles of physics themselves would contradict this); we might in theory know of a generalized state of a system (quantum superposition), but even then there are too many other assumptions (about experimental devices, about the individuals reading the experiments, about science as a whole) that go into the experimental paradigm.

I still find truth (as given) a useful concept, as a metaphysical principle that reality exists and has some working real mechanism (defined as being mathematically describable) -- we may never we able to write it down or discover it entirely, but it exists. Try to imagine an universe that is indescribable in principle (yields contradiction). There must be a rule.

It also sets the standard for our models.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...
That makes sense, thanks for explaining
What you say about performance on NV 3090 probably applies better to much older GPUs.

NV has put a great deal of recent work into getting their system to execute regular multi-threaded code with the same sort of speedup as they have had with SIMD workloads. It might be better to think of today's NV GPU as a super-threadripper when the data to be processed is already in GPU memory. The coder's job becomes making sure enough threads are ready to run to use up all the compute units at all times.
Carotid artery disease – Symptoms and causes – Mayo Clinic
This is not the first time I've felt compelled to quote from Through the Looking Glass:
--------
[the White king said:] ‘Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them.’

‘I see nobody on the road,’ said Alice.

‘I only wish I had such eyes,’ the King remarked in a fretful tone. ‘To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it’s as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!’
Isn't this solving the wrong problem? e.g. I don't have any issue with bots on discord.

Bots are a problem on twitter and Facebook because neither of those networks is truly social, it is just shouting into the void.

Bots can react but they can't interact, make interaction not reaction the foundation of a social network and you nullify the power of bots.
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I am familiar with Namecoin
What's the relevant difference, that neutrons have mass? If one can make squeezed light, why aren't squeezed neutrons possible in too, at least in principle?
I'm guessing that if they can get the non-backtracking algorithm to perform at least as fast, then they'll consider switching the default
Sort of an electronic post office, perhaps?
How cute, you think antifa are democrats.

But sure call it propaganda if you wish. Perhaps it is. Many anarchists such as my self are well aware of the propaganda we proactively distribute on a daily basis.

What the ancestor is complaining about is that when the right wing does propaganda, it is not called propaganda, it is called free speech.
Yes it would because the file transfer would continue inside the screen session instead of dying with the ssh session.
Twitter: An update following the riots in Washington, DC
Any European criticizing AWS for banning Parler is only paying lip service; Parler couldn’t exist as European company as Europe has far stricter hate speech laws.

In any case far left leaning activists have always expressed that the mega caps have too much power; but they were called communists until it started affected people on the right.
Is there a punch line? The NYT is so bad that I unsubscribed and now I can’t read any of it.
The most obvious solution to problems arising from assisting the creation of a superintelligence is not to assist the creation of a superintelligence.

Unfortunately, we didn’t learn from the proliferation of nuclear weapons:

“If we don’t make nuclear weapons, others will make them. If we make them then they will make them. If we make them and they make them, we’ll have to make more. If they make them and we make them, they’ll make more...”

Note: This fallacy also helps sell guns and martial arts lessons.
I mostly identify the Fairness Doctrine as a liberal canard, not a conservative one.
Not tolerating intolerance theoretically reduces, isolates, or rejects the intolerant element, stopping it from committing intolerances and therefore (again, theoretically) reducing net intolerance. Censoring a censoring element only serves as petty retaliation, since it is necessarily a net increase in censorship (if the censoring element is the host of the information, as in this case).
I’ve spent more time chasing an iPhone folder with an app I want to put into it than I care to admit.

That websites and volunteer ui projects get it wrong is understandable- the problem domain is huge. But dragging an app onto a folder is a rather constrained problem that should be easier to solve.

Yet...
That picture alone is a great lesson in how to convey a crap ton of information in a small amount of space. It was a great read, thank you!
I'd argue that in Point 1 of the AUP you linked to gives them all the out they need: "...adversely affects Hurricane's legal interests." and then the two sub bullets, #6 & #7 both give them lots of grey area to terminate hosting. Not to mention they state you will enforce an at least equally strict and enforceable agreement with any of the users utilizing your system.

To be fair, I think most reasonable people would say sub points #6 and #7 seem pretty fair, at least on the face of it they do to me. But what one person considers a threat another considers banter and hence we have scenarios where people can easy run afoul of some morality judgement by an employee or exec at the company. It doesn't have to be as blatant as a death threat it could be some banter via an innuendo and suddenly they ban your account. Sure, you can sue, argue your point, but either way your business would be offline. Just the first part I quoted, all they have to say is your content or users affect their legal interests in some way and again subjective and your done.
Funny that you mention Douglas Adams. I am confident HFTers would be on Ark B.
Is it possible for a nuclear power plant to fail catastrophically, at least in theory?
More than three times?
having end-users "compute" is the most distributed form that is available. You just need to provide a necessary input for the computation (cost of disposing what they bought). In fact, I almost finished my response with "so why not let the market solve it?" =)