skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think stopping AT&T (or Twitter, which is merely the more modern form of telecommunications) from censoring the public provides greater freedoms to the society at large without taking rights away from anyone.

The hypocrisy on the left is truly stunning because you know if BigTech was mainly republicans censoring democrats, the dems would suddenly be able to recognize the "freedom" issue quite easily.
I believe in CA, they have issued rule change instructing outlets with the vaccine to move down the tier levels if there is more vaccine than demand in the current official tier.

Unfortunately, this will need adoption and communication in all states separately since federal direction on these matters is lacking.
A mildly insane possibility would be to install lxc and then use a system container to play with nix in.
To make many things a household name, one has to compete with the giants directly. I am not necessarily referring to the 'tech' economy. Most uses of tech are not in the 'tech industry' itself but to fulfill ulterior aims in other sectors.
By doing exactly what they are doing right now. Rocketdyne makes the engines that used to power the Space Shuttle, RS-25. RS-25 is quite comparable with the Raptor: very nearly the same thrust (about 500k pounds), higher Isp (450 in vacuum vs 380), but lower thrust-to-weight ratio (73 vs 200). The higher specific impulse makes up for the lower thrust-to-weight ratio (you need less propellant mass, but you have more engine mass). The most important aspect though is that the RS-25 is a reusable engine; for the Space Shuttle program, each RS-25 was used for an average of about 9 missions.

So, if Lockheed Martin decides to build a reusable rocket, then this engine just works off the shelf. No need for any new R&D.
It's no different than someone learning guitar because he wants to play like Joe Satriani. You start with Hot Cross Buns and work your way from there.

I'm sure that a motivated 11-year-old could learn to write games in Löve2d or Pico8.
You should be afraid of supporting fascists.
People behind all the platforms that are now banning Trump and GOP politicians presumably were aware of what was happening in the last two years. I wonder if recent events were truly the last straw for them, or did they suddenly gain the will to act after election results and are doing the right thing because it’s convenient now.
Could this board be useful for playing with RISCV?
I think "hackable" is an unfortunate description for a messaging platform as it can convey a lack of security/privacy.

Fwiw, the concept of a strictly insecure/zero-privacy messaging platform is interesting, but the word "hackable" wouldn't really help get the message across in that setting either. :)
What I’m interested in is how many people here are applauding the banning while liberal voices like Glenn Greenwald, and the ALCU are decrying it.

I’m sure some of my conservative friends would laugh if I told them this site makes me look like Regean in comparison to some others.

All good fun of course. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and ones I disagree with shouldn’t be hidden, but that itself is just my opinion.
Then perhaps there's a market opportunity for a credit card and online payment company that caters to white supremacists?
> Covington not relevant

False stories were allowed for weeks or months after facts were know without repurcussions

> laptop story

Stories about Hunter Biden were ACTIVELY suppressed on claims of "russian disinformation" without proof that they were in fact RD.

Stories about Trump with LESS evidence and more proof of "disinformation" are allowed to run unchecked.

> deliberately concocting false stories to further political agendas

And the same can be said of his detractors... INCLUDING among facebook/twitter. Both floating unverified stories and suppressing stories that haven't been proven false.

> explicitly sow discord

again... all the same is allowed from the left. Biden is allowed to claim "police treat BLM worse" when facts say the opposite... details that go against "trump mob violent" (IE antifa/blm individuals and groups in the "mob", cops letting protestors in, etc) are suppressed...

You want a slippery slope? allowing "facebook and twitter" to determine truth is THE slippery slope. They are biased and have been proven wrong repeatedly.

There is no "trying to climb out". Giving them unfettered power is digging the hole deeper.
That was centuries ago in covid time. I doubt cuomo is saying anything like that now. And Fauci and all other relevant experts have agreed with the fda approval.
I encourage people to use Hacker News whichever way they want to. Many people respect this forum as a place for intelligent discussion. Unfounded claims that the election was stolen is not intelligent discussion. Unfounded claims that "ANTIFA" existed in any sort of widespread, organized fashion during the black lives matter protests are not intelligent discussion. Whataboutism surrounding the treatment of occasionally violent protests during BLM versus the treatment of an attempted coup lack the nuance surrounding the psychology, sociology, and power dynamics of the two situations being drastically different. That is not intelligent discussion. Unfounded claims that the insurrectionists were either ANTIFA agitators (they weren't) or were somehow peaceful as they chanted "hang Mike Pence" and searched for Nancy Pelosi with zip ties, are not intelligent discussion.

In fact, I lost a lot of respect for this community by turning on showdead. I'm not sure I'll be staying here much longer if this momentum of misinformation continues to grow.
> protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny"

Does these people also have a YouTube podcast that was taken offline? Or are you trying to point a finger at an unrelated issue and saying, "That is also bad!!"

What you are doing is called whataboutism. We need to evaluate situations with their context.

Constantly pulling in new examples and "they did X which excuses Y" is a child's game. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "they started it!".

For example, I might say, "the BLM was responding to threats of violence from the cops" to which you might respond, "the cops were responding to threats of violence from suspected criminals". We could continue this chain forever, coming up with some other example and historical precedent. It's not productive.

We're here, now in this thread discussing this one event.

> Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"?

I assume you mean on Bannons show? Because there are tons of examples of what you've described in other contexts.
When I lived in Holland it was #1 by far (as of 10 years ago)

When I visited some friends in Chile it was also #1 by far

It's actually really annoying that all my international friends are on whatsapp while all my US friends are not.
Yes, the standard should be applied to everyone. In my opinion, no one should ever suggest the murder of any other person regardless of whether they intend it as sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, or anything else.
High Voltage “Lifter”
My only response to that is apps that aren’t made to be good macOS citizens wouldn’t even vaguely register on my radar as ‘native’, even if they link against Cocoa.

‘Native’ on Apple platforms isn’t just a technical description, it’s also about UI and, more importantly, UX. Of course, Apple are starting to muddy the waters with UIKit for Mac — but even then, the fact that iOS apps can now run ‘natively’ on macOS goes a long way to showing that just because an app links against the relevant frameworks compiled for the right processor architecture, that doesn’t make it native in the Apple-y sense.

Apps made using cross-platform frameworks like Qt and GTK certainly don’t register to me as native. They don’t just work differently, they even look odd. I don’t think this fazes Windows and Linux users/developers as much because there has never been any level of consistency remotely close to what Cocoa and macOS offers — if an app puts a few buttons in a slightly odd place, that’s not seen an a problem.

So I agree with your point on a technical basis that my assessment wasn’t 100% technically true — but I think from the point of view of what ‘native apps’ means when discussing Apple platforms, I don’t think I’m too far off the mark.
..."good and evil," not "God and evil."
The BLM protests themselves killed 20-30 people. The murder spree that immediately followed killed thousands more. The Gun Violence Archive has the whole story, but this chart for Philadelphia is indicative[1]. Note the structural break in the series in May 2020. I contend this was ex-ante predictable and should therefore be laid at BLM’s feet.

> they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat

Agreed. But neither did the Trump rioters.

[1] http://ibgvr.org/philadelphia-shooting-victims-dashboard/
non autonomous cars have driver assists now that slam on the brakes when they think you’re about to crash. Statistically a huge improvement to active safety, and then there’s cattle grids.

Imagine you’re driving along in full control on an empty country road. Out of nowhere your car panics, slams in the brakes, deploys seatbelt tensioners, and flashes bright warning lights because clearly you fell asleep or something if you cant see that big wall.

Would you react? Maybe swerve coz you’re startled?
I'd go further than that. If a vehicle's automated systems caused or contributed to an accident or a road rule violation, the car manufacturer should be held responsible.

If your company's automated emergency braking, or lane assist, or adaptive cruise control - causes or contributes to a problem, someone from that company should be in court next to the driver facing judgement for the consequences.

(I'd even go so far as to suggest if the existence of a system leads to a situation where an incident occurred because of the driver's assumption that the automated system would prevent it, then the company should need to justify why the driver should be held responsible instead of the software. If your advertising claims "autopilot!", you're going to be apportioned a significant portion of liability even if your fine print says "Drivers must keep alert and ready to take control at all times" - you should be judged based on a reasonable persons expectation from the language you use to promote your vehicles, not some w4easel words in your T&Cs.)
You can talk about wanting more ownership. That can include talking about working closely with end users and making long term design decisions.
I don’t think the comparison is valid.

There were always far more available perspectives from a variety of media sources than there are large tech media companies. Rupert Murdoch in his wildest dreams has never had anything approaching the control of information that Twitter, Facebook or Google/YouTube have currently.
lol

i've been spending ten times more time on Gab this year. just saying.

Gab is so overloaded these days it's hard to log in.
The idea is if you remove enough of their ability to communicate with the general population, their influence will be significantly reduced. It would remove the feedback loop that's feeding the fire.

It also sends a message that their behavior is unacceptable. That has a very strong influence on culture as a whole. Messages like this are how a lot of civil rights movements have worked.
I think you need to recheck your facts. Sweden is one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world. It also (at some point) had more billionaires per capital than any other country (including the US). The of the likely reasons is that the consequences of failure are a lot less in Sweden compared with (say) the US.
If someone is searching for Signal, what makes them see Messenger and decide to click that instead? I don't understand how this isn't throwing money into a fire.
my problem isn't really banning... it's inconsistency based on political whims and flash mobs.

If you ban all violence and racism? great... if you ban racism and violence from the right and allow it from the left? That's unacceptable.
> When you factor in a billion+ people moving from one platform to another it is not the platform that is deplatforming users but it is the users abandoning the platform.

We've seen this happen in the U.S. too with the recent conservative shift from Twitter to Facebook and Parler. If Parler does go down due to AWS pulling the plug, we will again see a shift to a new platform - it's a matter of where and when, not if.
I kind of think it might be a good thing that they are rushing them out. It allows Biden to appear more moderate and it gives him more bargaining power to work with after the transition. Appeasement hasn't worked. I would be terrified to be a citizen in a country anywhere near China right now, countries in the region are slowly getting muscled and beaten back. I feel horrible for Hong Kong and Taiwan is next unless we can back them up. Hopefully a little good comes out of the cluster f of drama in the Whitehouse.
Lots of people die every year in car accidents while wearing a seatbelt.

Which is why I stopped wearing a seatbelt.
I mean we’re talking about 75 million voters and likely about 150 million people in total if everyone was surveyed. The idea that you can say anything meaningful about all Tump or Biden supporters is basically zero.

We’re necessarily talking about an absolutely insane and unhinged group of people. It doesn’t mean that you can go around encouraging and feeding that level of crazy and not expect bad things to happen.
As an idealists who repeats the "private companies can do what they want" perspective, I agree fully. But this is the legal situation, and asking companies to take any kind of moral stance is going to be an uphill battle.

Whatever future we want, we are going to have to push for it legally. Because right now management can be replaced if shareholders don't like what they're doing, given that shareholders are their only legal obligation here.
At the risk of splitting hairs, to me it reads more that the author is slating free software (or perhaps the only available free software), rather than praising commercial software. I think I read the article as a bit of a "stream of consciousness rant" and often give the spewers of such words a bit of leeway for interpretation. I've written in a state of mind of frustration and later thought "Yeah you did go a bit over the top there, but it's a reflection of your state of mind at the time".
TSMC guarantees that every western country has a stake in Taiwan's sovereignity.

As long as they manufacture most of the worlds advanced silicon, western countries will continue to protect and arm taiwan.
> What matters is the totality of the evidence.

If half of the evidence contradicts the other half would it be fair to conclude that we don’t know much about the things we have researched?
It would be really, really nice if the author actually defined the term “estrangement” formally somewhere in the article.

It seems to be written for parents upset that their adult children are maintaining what the parents see to be unduly strict boundaries between themselves and the children.

The title suggests this is a new thing, to an American audience of all people. This is the trope that launched a thousand American plays, movies, and TV shows.

The author finds need to note that divorce seems to make things worse. The self-estrangement of the parents from each other leads, as an apparent surprise to the divorced couple, to the acceptance of estrangement as an acceptable action by the child themself. How little self-awareness must her parental clients have?

“Sometimes the steady current of our movement toward children creates a wave so powerful that it threatens to push them off their own moorings; it leaves them unable to find their footing until they’re safely beyond the parent’s reach. Sometimes they need to leave the parent to find themselves.”

If anyone wants more insight into this phenomenon, there were a few hundred books written in the late 60s through the 70s on this theme. Every TV talk show must have had at least one program a week on the topic when the first-born Boomers were setting out on their own.

Heck, the Beatles even wrote a song about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She%27s_Leaving_Home

“We are all flawed.”

What should be the boilerplate final sentence in any psychology article.
you shouldn't see any of those unless you verify one of your friends; or you mess up your own devices
>This analogy erases the nuance that might make one desirable to society and the other undesirable.

Could you explain the nuance then? In recent days I've found this explanation often used and generally in ways that I am not convinced of. In many cases, the arguments being presented are done so without any concern for nuance, so I find it hard to expect someone to understand nuance that wasn't originally included in the argument. I get this is largely a result of people only presenting a summary of their argument (as I find any writing to be a summary as words convey less than thoughts contain).

Especially since we are not talking about legal action the government is taking to ban something dangerous enough to society to be illegal, but a private business choosing to ban something because they choose to do so.
These topics are being massively discussed on HN right now and have been the whole time. Obviously we're not trying to suppress them. It sounds like you didn't see it, but at the time I merged these threads last night, there were something like 8 or 9 major duplicates of this story between the front page and page 2, all essentially the same discussion. That's a failure mode for HN and something the community most certainly does not want.

When there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT), we merge duplicates and downweight follow-ups [1] until there's Significant New Information (SNI) [2]. That's been the approach ever since the Snowden avalanche of 2013 [3], when many users rightly complained that HN was overrun with copy after copy of the same discussion, and a stampede of copycat submissions repeating the same things, media outlets reporting on each other's reporting, and so on.

You can argue that AWS is in a different category than app stores and that therefore this article was indeed SNI. I actually agree with that. But as I said, the thread wasn't any different. There's also the aspect that part of our job is to prevent this site from going into meltdown and destroying itself in hellfires of flamewar rage.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=follow-up%20by%3Adang&dateRang...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22significant%20new%20informa...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
My dad was pretty attached to his 1984 Macintosh when I accidentally destroyed it about 25 years ago. He instructed me to always put the dust cover on it when it was not in use. I interpreted that too literally, so this particular Mac suffocated in its own dust cover while I walked away to eat dinner. It was reportedly smoking when it was found by my sister. Its final act in life was to help me catalogue my rock collection in HyperCard.

Anyways...it is still sitting around in its original box, so I’ve always wondered what it would take to resurrect it. I’d be interested if anyone had an intuition for whether such a project is DIYable, a specialist-only job, or a lost cause?
China isn’t the cheapest manufacturer any more and there are large costs in offshoring manufacturing anyway (essentially having to overmanage to get the desired outcome) so there is an increasing trend of returning manufacturing jobs to rich countries.

But also yes, directly, don’t let a difference in cost compromise your moral compass.

Slavery is also cost effective, would you argue for that too? (of course that is indeed one of the issues of doing business in china too)
In the small, it's dramatically more cost effective to fix the road. Ignoring cost to develop and test, just the cost to deploy a fix to all the affected cars would probably be a lot more than £70,000.

In the large, it's always a shame to fix a good test case.
> remove all hope of legal political influence

no one has suggested this and none of the actions of the past few days can be categorized as this

Trump’s campaign (for an election that has ended) is not the only campaign in the country
Will submitted resumes be machine-parsed? (I have two versions of mine, wondering which to submit)
Exactly. These companies want to avoid government regulation / oversight. They are taking proactive actions to lessen the blame that would be assigned to them and thus (hopefully) avoid future regulatory action.
Beating around what bush?! I've literally addressed, line by line, every single point you made.

The analogy is there to aid your understanding, but if you want to block your ears and go "lalalala left wingerr lalalalala" I guess it won't help right? I told you to stop ascribing your political leanings to me, nothing I've said is partisan. It's lazy attempts to distract from actual discourse.

-

You chose one point to explode which isn't even related to the topic at hand and still won't answer if you actually think "Twitter only removes Right Wing content" which is what started this whole thing!

And you just spent an entire comment complaining about Parler's removals... you want to be embarrassed real quick?

My points about Parler... come from Parler!

Here's their exact words:

> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._

You say

>you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content

Another weasel! Hate speech is not illegal! At least not in the US!

My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech yet amusingly you're trying to distract with all sorts of talk about Amazon when _the literal community guidelines_ are bragging that you won't be banned for any opinion... which includes hate speech!

Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.

I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:

1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)

2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.

Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle. Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
I suppose it comes down to the fact that sidebars can now inhabit the space usually reserved for title bars. It’s not a design decision against which I have any opposition so long as draggable space remains (and there usually is; I complained to Apple during the Big Sur beta period and they made some spacing adjustments).

But I agree, those icons coming and going can make using them something of a pain. It also makes less clear what apps actually have them. An option in System Preferences to make proxy icons show all the time would be lovely.
> We've seen this happen in the U.S. too with the recent conservative shift from Twitter to Facebook and Parler. If Parler does go down due to AWS pulling the plug, we will again see a shift to a new platform - it's a matter of where and when, not if.

Exactly right! No platform is permanent. No company is permanent.
Philosophers and theologians tend to be questioning answers that their predecessors or contemporaries have raised. This goes way back: Plato's dialogues have a lot of references to Heraclitus, Parmenides--well, the pre-Socratics--and Aristotle argues with Plato. To read the the successor without knowing at least something of the predecessor is like listening to somebody on the phone: you might be able to follow the conversation from just the one side, or you might not.