skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
These exercises seem pretty tame for exercising the neck. There is a long history of ways to increase neck muscle strength. The Nautilus 4-way neck machines are the best engineered, though you won't find them in many gyms, probably because they can be very dangerous for untrained people. Under full load, a distraction that causes you to twist your head suddenly can seriously injure your neck.

For cheap and safe neck exercises, the best method today is a combination of timed static contractions (TSC)[1] and a cheap webbed strap[2]. As with all strength training, intensity of effort is 80-90% of the training effect, followed by proper form. The disadvantage of TSCs is that there is no simple way to record your progress week to week as you grow stronger. But if you load and unload your neck slowly, you can exercise each of the four directions to momentary muscular failure (MMF) in a safe and very time efficient protocol.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8If3u67kw

[1] http://ren-ex.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/TimedStaticCont...

[2] https://www.strapworks.com/Side_Release_Buckle_Belts_p/srbb2...
The sentiment in this thread expressed in this thread is that "companies should not be forced to provide a platform for people they dislike". That is true, but it seems there is context missing to that argument.

It appears that the tech industry operates as a cartel that has a monopoly over almost all of the technological world. This is the real problem. Ironically, a lot of people here think it is great, because they aren't coming for them. The only problem is, this is very shortsighted. They will come for everyone, and maybe one day, you won't align with their views. Many civilisations already realised the problem with this type of situation, and that is why constitutions and religions and laws were formed and created successful societies.

The fact is that Apple and Google own almost 100% of the smartphone platform, which is one of the biggest platforms. Google owns almost 100% of the browser platform, twitter pretty much owns the short-form political communication platform, etc. This creates a different context, where they should really be governed by the rules of a democratic society, rather than of a couple of unelected billionaires.

Another issue here is that they are essentially destroying all of their competition. Parler is competition to twitter. When the tech giants work together, they can end every form of competition against them. Nobody here has a problem with that? It seems that everybody here has left-wing views and because the tech giants align with those views, they are turning a blind-eye to everything.

It is interesting that we have had months of riots and deaths from antifa and BLM, with entire blocks turned to ash, yet there was no outrage here. Suddenly, someone with a bullhorn hat on gets into the whitehouse, and it is supposedly now a green light for technological tyranny like we have never seen before.

Not only that, but all of this censorship is going to create extreme violence. Without a voice, your enemies have no other avenues left.
Only if we were shutting down the entire internet.
I think it is for everyone's good that they are getting censored. However, they should have known this was going to happen and take steps to make it cloud agnostic. It is just obvious.
To be clear - you're right, I did the run-through the worst-case scenario, but I did it for someone else who wasn't seeing it. It's not that my own view rests on it.

I won't share my email or other contact here since I tend to share somewhat personal stories on HN so I'd rather it not totally tie to who I am (though really who cares) so let me lay out the simplest view of my short case on BTC.

I believe that valuation matters. I "believe" in the price of an oil futures contract for example because I know it represents the best effort of invested parties to arrive at what that price ought to be (through a market mechanism.) So people say things like "I am bullish on oil as long as it's under $X" - and once it goes above $X (plus some margin perhaps) even the bulls sell. This is good because it's sane behavior in the market.

With Bitcoin, I don't see anyone say "I am bullish until it crosses $X" - the culture of the marketplace is that it's going up no matter the price. In market terms it creates unchecked upward pressure on the price, which in my mind equates to bubble conditions.

And then I have seen enough bubbles burst (in my lifetime and through study of history) to know that unchecked upward pressure will stop just after it reaches its max. And since people aren't anchoring to an analytic $X price, there's likewise no floor on the way down. I spelled out the mechanics of this in what you call Armageddon analysis.

To boil this down very simply:
1. Whenever people are buying without an attempt to valuate, they inflate a bubble.
2. Bubbles always burst.

I have other, more technical and psychological elements to the short case, but this is the simplest piece. People bidding something up without concern for valuation always spells trouble.
> Political parties should have to earn your vote every election rather than relying on a "force of habit".

That would be nice, but I've practiced "sucks less" voting since I was old enough to cast a ballot. I vote for the party that sucks less. I don't care for the Democrats, but I don't loathe them quite as much as I do the Republicans.

I'd rather not vote at all; I'm not convinced it does anything but rubber-stamp the continued existence of a government that neither represents the people nor serves the general welfare particularly well, but I continue to vote despite my doubts because I could be wrong about its futility.
> I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums that have existed through history.

I'll put out some ideas quickly. You can build on them. Please share back what you find.

Social media platforms, more or less:

* Tend to blur any one sense of place

* Offer geographically dispersed communication

* May deemphasize the overall humanity of participants

* Tend to accentuate particular aspects of people, such as photos or messages or resumes

* Offer asynchronous communication

* Allow for nearly zero-cost message sending and replication (i.e. retweeting)

* Unlimited person-to-person communication channels

Traditional town squares, more or less:

* Offer a tangible sense of place

* Offer a tangible connection to other people

* Are subject to public assembly laws.

* Only a limited number of people can fit.

* Public many-to-one communication is constrained by acoustics.

* So audio amplification is often needed.

* Private communications tend to be limited to short-range communication. In other words, you can't have N^2 two-person conversations.
FWIW, I've almost never seen this argument made by people who aren't secretly or openly supporting those who are banned (you being the exception here).

I believe there's quite a bit of data now that shows that deplatforming tends to work. I have forgotten all the names, but someone named "Milo" seems relevant, and wasn't Alex Jones also banned from somewhere and lost a lot of influence since?

And those are the cases where bans would tend to fail, i. e. people that had years to grow a loyal fan base, collect names & emails, etc. If it works in those cases, it should be extremely powerful when being used a bit more proactive. Anybody watching /r/thed... would have known it's toxic two weeks in, before it had time to spiral entirely out of control.
Maybe if you have a deontological position with the rule you mentioned, there are many other possibilities.
Btw, one of the things I came up with in bash was an “object oriented” pattern (antipattern?) where a “constructor” function would declare variables for “attributes” and functions for “methods”, like for example declaring an object named Vector1 whose fields are Vector1_x Vector1_y Vector1_z and methods like Vector1_Normalize and Vector1_SetMagnitude. The functions would be eval’d for each instance of the object during the constructor to reference the attributes and methods of that named object instance. Is this possible in cmake? (I don’t know cmake at all)
Subtle?

Read the wiki page on hunter biden.
Thanks for sharing, this is really interesting (not being sarcastic)
> Madoff's scheme lasted 20 years and collected $50B, including many multi hundred million dollar checks from institutional investors.

This. Specifically, it's worth noting that Madoff's scheme collapsed in the 2008 financial crisis when people were asking to pull money out of the fund. IOW it worked as long as Madoff could convince more and more people to put money in. When he could no longer make the redemptions, he was caught:

> For years, Madoff had simply deposited investors' money in his business account at JPMorganChase and withdrew money from that account when they requested redemptions. He had scraped together just enough money to make a redemption payment on November 19. However, despite cash infusions from several longtime investors, by the week after Thanksgiving it was apparent that there was not enough money to even begin to meet the remaining requests. His Chase account had over $5.5 billion in mid-2008, but by late November was down to $234 million, a fraction of the outstanding redemptions. On December 3, he told longtime assistant Frank DiPascali, who had overseen the fraudulent advisory business, that he was finished. On December 9, he told his brother about the fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff
There is this new study which was being publicised earlier in the week: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/heal...

The study claims they do reduce mortality. It is, however, a non-reviewed preprint.
I thought it was pretty well known that Wikipedia has been gamed repeatedly over the years. From companies to individuals. Generally speaking in the LONG TERM, things get corrected. But they are definitely not perfect and their editors have bias whether intentional or not.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...
EFF seems to dislike corporations and governments working together against people, whether voluntary or compelled. I expect they would dislike Tim Cook handing over info, and would dislike Twitter being compelled to carry speech by government officials.
Twitter’s only duty is to maximize shareholder value like good capitalists without breaking laws. It isn’t breaking laws. It is making a bet that kicking of certain people will help the platform in the long run (same bet that AWS, Google etc are making) If your views are so fringe that the majority of the tech co’s are telling you to GTFO well then society as a majority is voting against you getting a bullhorn. Otherwise they would be worried about a boycott by users/advertisers. If you think the giants have misjudged then I am sure you could find funding for a competing site and infrastructure. Free market capitalism is about allocation of capital in a democratic society not about deciding what the rules of that should be that is the govts job. Please vote!

Strongly agree on public officials using private platforms for policy, but they must have seen something attractive about it. Free people and whatnot...
Oh, it's not even subtle. Here's a game you can play: compare an article with the same article in another language. If you don't speak another language then use google translate. You'll see where the agenda pushing is.

Oh, and always read talk pages.
Check out https://github.com/HollyAdele/awesome-programming-for-kids
Hmmm I guess I would be better to say I’m a conservative libertarian who voted for trump twice. I’m happy to see the back of Trump and as his presidency progressed I realized he nor the gop align with my views. I really see how fake both sides are and have become jaded with politics.

I’ve told all of my maga friends Trump is a clown all along. But again the left really didn’t have any issues with riots this summer and now everyone’s clutching their pearls.
I assume this means literally no other website on AWS is hosting content endorsing violence. Or they plan on policing this in general now. Or they do this kind of thing regularly and I am just unaware. Which is it?
It's in fact a great argument against death penalty for murder, and such argument is commonly made.
There must be some way to combine a truly decentralized free speech platform with an opportunity for clean young boys to sell their blood to the highest bidder without the nanny state interfering.

FLAGGED? WHAT ABOUT MUH FREEDOMS?
All: threads are being paginated for performance reasons to prevent our server from melting down (yes we're working on it). If you look at the top of this page you'll see there are thousands of comments. If you want to read them all you'll need to click More at the bottom of each page, or like this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=2

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=3

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=4

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=5 ... and so on.

While I have you: if you're going to comment on this thread, or anywhere on HN, make sure you're up on the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. This is a site for curious, thoughtful conversation. It is not a site for political battle, snark, or name-calling. Why? Because those things destroy curious, thoughtful conversation.

This is one of those moments where we can either raise the bar or slide deeper into the hell realms. We're therefore raising the bar. Please use the site as intended: curious, thoughtful conversation, and be kind, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are. If you can't do that (understandable, given what we're all living through), don't post until you can.

I'm banning significantly more accounts right now, especially those that have built up a track record of abusing HN. The bans are not based on political position, as anyone with the fortitude to slog through my posting history can see. No matter how right you are or feel you are, make sure you know what the rules are and follow them. In particular, do not use HN primarily for political or ideological battle. Not only is that not what the site is for, it destroys what it is for, so we have no choice but to ban accounts that do it—and so we are: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
What Happened (at the Capitol on January 6)?
> block MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo

I’ll be fine if these news sites were spewing hatred and fascism.
The person you responded to is largely correct, despite your aggressive tone.

While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material.

Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...
The game analogy is interesting because this is clearly a bunch of sore losers.
> people threatening to kill others

Are we talking left-wing threats on Twitter or right-wing threats on Parler?
I think that's more a function of the US's [1] voting system rather than anything else. I'm very lucky to live in a country (Canada) where you have a choice of 4-5 relatively similar parties, and they have to work hard to get you to vote (though we could do with some Multi Member Districts).
https://www.fairvote.ca/rural-urban-proportional/
---
[1] India has the same system too (and is way more unstable at that).
> I am in favor of these matters being handled and adjudicated via the courts, not by private entities with no due process, arbitrary process and limited oversight.

So if Amazon wants to discontinue a business relationship they would need to sue their customer? What would they sue them for? I don't think it's a crime to break terms of service.
Some people believe "Neutral Point of View" means you are supposed to write articles about serial killers in such a way that reading them would have no impact on your willingness to let them marry your son.
TOR hidden services are, I think, the only quick and easy way to do this. Pirate Bay has been reasonably successful at staying accessible in the open, but not without considerable expense as I understand.
Why should the nmap developers change their license for IBM's convenience, since Fedora is a Red Hat product and Red Hat is now part of IBM? One might suggest that IBM needs nmap more than nmap needs IBM.
That's dodging the question. Let's say they weren't spewing hatred/fascism, and were reporting on critical information that Americans need to know. But AT&T blocks them. Is the response still going to be "AT&T is private, so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want"?
They exist to maximize shareholder value within the bounds of the rules of law. I think you are right, content that was controversial and highly engaging/debated became a massive liability. When an asset becomes toxic you dump it.
Alcohol is my kryptonite. Even as little as one or two beers the night before and I find my performance suffers horribly. Marijuana not so much. A few puffs before dinner and I wake up feeling great.
Current events are so divisive and many times no one has a clear picture of what's happening that I can't see how someone objectively assesses a current event news outlet as lacking reputation without prior incidents.
I'm going to take a guess that you've not lived under an actual regime of censorship. This is not it, and quite honestly basically all speech which threatens others is restricted. There are always limits, and just because other crossed them does not necessarily mean that restrictions are going to tighten further.
Wouldn’t it be more like refusing to sell phones to known terrorists rather than a blanket ban of selling phones to anyone?
That's a good point, but what you are describing would only happen if the vast majority of shareholders, employees, customers and owners of key telecom companies all have the opposite political/world value of the general public, so I think it's highly unlikely.

If it does somehow happen, then yes, we should look at how come all the employees, customers, shareholders and owners of the key telecom companies all happen to hold the opposite value of the general public, that would be the bigger failure.

>It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private.

I disagree, there is a nuanced, but big difference in government allowing free speech and government guaranteeing free speech. I'm mostly for the former and mostly against the latter.
AWS is not a service provided by the state.
Twitter has a system that misses a lot but they ban regular people all the time. You can pick up a suspension for saying you hope someone steps on a lego.
If you believe a word is causing harm and are asking people not to use it, you should at least articulate the kind of harm you're talking about, who is being harmed, and maybe suggest some alternative wording.
Robot with structure and wheels made of ice accepted in IROS and why
Ah yes, we’ve found the next target!
The Science Behind “The Martian” – Staying Warm on Mars
The day big tech companies learned that democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them, these kinds of actions started happening. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
My favourite at the moment is foreigners who change 'British' to English/Welsh/Scottish in an attempt to create division
The linked article includes links out to other articles that go into more detail.
> These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rather than a balanced view that reflects differing opinions from multiple sides of the aisle. There is also a distinct Western and English cultural bias in how articles describe and frame other countries, other cultures, and other religions.

The problem is real as I've mentioned elsewhere, but it's overwhelmingly a sourcing problem. There simply aren't many sources about non-Western or traditionalist (as opposed to modern/progressive) worldviews.
> sexual and gender identities are protected classes in the United States

This isn't the case at the federal level, which is why the "gay wedding cake" event could be settled in favor of the bakers. It's currently up to individual states to determine whether sexual orientation, etc. is a protected class.

"U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [...] Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
I think you're right in saying that voting isn't really all that effective --- it isn't (except in 2000), but I don't we should be looking at this from an individual scale, because we're really just tiny little cells in this process.
> If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) (“Prohibited Content”), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content.

https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/

Folks are openly discussing treason. Parler ain't moderating it. Boot gotten.

Enforcing your "don't do crimes on our hardware" TOS is not remotely "precedent" setting. Besides, that only happens in court.
> They'd still have to do their normal legal thing they do, while also having to manage a hosting service.

Yeah, you generally have to put in some efforts to realize your beliefs.
I think op is highlighting the double-standard of conservative principles.

"We want to have free enterprise and no government intervention except when free enterprise decides to ban them for being assholes."
Private companies still have to follow the law. What you mention would be anti-net neutrality and thus illegal.
The residents of Singapore, Taiwan, and New Zealand are also having fun right now, without the 2x-3x people dying. The difference is that they stay at home when the experts tell them to stay at home.
That's because they make money from advertising that they then use to pay for moderators. I doubt most brands would even want to touch Parler with a 10 foot pole.
That’s very different from what’s happening.

Amazon, Google and Apple all warned Parler about their violations and asked them to moderate content, before booting them. And of course Parler didn’t do anything
Here is a write-up on the subject.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
How does it work now with copyleft licenses? If I gpl my code, does that no longer apply after the same number of years as a copyrighted work? How does the law handle a continually evolving code base?