skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's quite a lot of this kind of admiration for authoritarianism tucked away in nooks and crannies of the tech community. It survived mostly off the rationale that people should always be free to express their conscience, even in the case of extreme ideologies - which was rather common in spaces populated by "outsiders" a few decades back, of course.

I have to imagine that idea made its contribution to recent events, attracting the wrong sort of people and delaying a response.

It's all very much worth reconsidering from our new perspective.
So many politicians are guilty of misrepresenting the truth or even downright lies; the last two Democrat candidates have been guilty of outright lies as well. Who will be the arbiter of this blurry line of truthfulness.
Pylon – Your new favorite discussion platform
How are you so sure of that? Especially in this age of rapid telecommunication I find it unlikely that no one in the crowd coordinated ahead of time with at least one other person there.
The bounty isn't as much of an assurance as they would have you believe. Good publicity nonetheless.

Relevant article from Moxie Marlinespike: https://archive.vn/SIl9M

A theorized valid attack that was deemed invalid by the fine print in their bounty program: https://web.archive.org/web/20181118154823/https://www.alexr...

These are criticisms of MTproto 1, there is barely any literature about the new version.
This has worked for me, but when on a handheld device I'm paranoid of cutting half of my face off or keeping myself in a weird position.

I wish it had a two-tone high-contrast filtered version of myself, that I could use merely for positioning. Might be a potential solve?
Gonna need to ban a lot more people than Bannon if you're going to ban everybody who used figurative calls to violence and was associated with some group which engaged in violence. Especially given 9 people died in BLM protests last year.

Regarding this incident Zuckerberg didn't ban him at the time because he said that Bannon didn't even violate his sites policy in regards to how many times you have to say things like this before getting banned. He reacted with a removal of the video. Zuckerberg was correct and for all the hate leveled against him he seems to be one of the only people who is resisting political pressure and fighting to enforce policy fairly and unarbitrarily.

An extremely broad amount of people will once or twice say something like this regardless of political affliation and the banning of Bannon here is mostly a mixture of hindsight and bias and arbitrariness. Bannon wasn't banned today based on an equally applied sober reading of social media policy, but because the capitol riots happened. Trumps supporters messed up a building and got themselves killed and that's being used as a pretence to treat other Trump supporters arbitrarily online for the greater good because they're just too dangerous.
The context for Maxine Waters comment was that a Trump Administration official had a bad experience at a restaurant, while that administration was in the process of separating children from families resulting in over 500 still being separated today. That administration official lied to the American public about this policy, and Waters felt that it was our civic duty to tell officials like them that in the administration wherever they go they should feel bad.

Note that at no point were these administration officials threatened with violence, just people telling them they're bad people.
Some of these things exist already. You can screen share and play online games with a class for example using kahoot.com
There has to be something these companies are doing wrong. When I use discord, even while on mobile data and walking around, the audio quality is flawless (or as good as the mic) Why is it that ms teams and the rest end up sounding worse than AM radio?
> People were open to evidence for some time

When was this, exactly? I tried posting what I believed was evidence of at least some ballot-counting fraud on HN once not so long ago, and my account was downvoted and flagged straight to hell.

Your expectations appear to be out of sync with reality. Go look for the evidence. At least to convince yourself that there isn't any, because all of the evidence has been banned.

(And in the time it took me to reply to your comment, it was downvoted for having the gall to suggest that evidence could even theoretically exist! JFC. That should change your mind if nothing else.)
For perceiving the events happening, sure, that was my point. These time differences are nearly always imperceptible but at distances of planets it truly becomes a way of looking into the past.

But to be clear, events happen concurrently, eg NASA knew _when_ relative to earth time and _perceived_ events, each stage was "happening" local to Mars vs Earth (assuming it all went well).

They made videos about this "7 minutes of terror", I forgot the name of them but linking here [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/Ki_Af_o9Q9s
Are we talking about the same Artimis program? The one that has produced agreements signed by 10 different nations or space agencies agreeing to guidelines for the peaceful, cooperative exploration and utilization of space? The one that has, every step along the way, fostered cooperation with our international allies? The one that has revitalized kids interest in space, Moon, and Mars as a place that people actually go?

That's just bad politics?

And yes, I am concerned that because Trump politicized NASA with his ridiculous 2024 Moon landing date that Biden will throw out the baby with the bathwater and cancel the whole program, as Obama tried to do in 2009-2011.
Access to legal counsel is in a special category. Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. It's extremely disturbing that political actions which may be distasteful but could never be prosecuted as crimes in normal circumstances have become a justification to harass law firms until they refuse to represent a client. I say "normal circumstances" because I'm not sure how long it will be until we get show trials and mass convictions of political figures.
My point was that it is reasonable to be moderate in applying policy. When did I attack free markets or the democracy? Perhaps I am not as smart as you are, but please do not insult.
if you're more comfortable with the CLI, you should take a look at the apio project (https://github.com/FPGAwars/apio). It neatly bundles all the required tools. Regarding HDLs, I'm still learning so can't offer any good advice on that.
All of those are true. They were there to "stop the steal" and were chanting "hang Mike Pence" and they had zip ties, pipe bombs, mace and more than likely plenty of guns. Only the elected representatives had time to evacuate, many of their staff were barricaded inside still. They had intent, weapons and access.
The flu (and news of the flu) spread much slower than COVID. The decision to keep dorms open was most likely made with limited information. To put this into perspective: many Harvard/MIT students didn't realize there was a deadly flu until they arrived on campus and were told to turn around. [0] Those students then had to alert any other students or travelers they met on their way home to also turn around. This propagation took a few weeks.

But lets entertain whether or not this was a good decision(it wasn't):

* Impromptu hospitals had to be arranged for at the A.T.O., Delt, Fiji and Theta Chi fraternities within weeks of the flu hitting Palo Alto. [1]

* Administration banned social gathering and unwarranted travel. Students were quarantined on campus and could not leave. Masks were compulsory everywhere on campus. Anyone not complying with the masks guidelines received a fine (this is somewhat less harsh than the police beatings in Boston/Cambridge).

* By October, it was considered a success that only around ten students died.

Meanwhile, not a singular undergraduate from MIT died on campus, and they continued their studies with an accelerated semester the following year. [2][3]

--

Notes:

[0] I've edited this from "flu" to "deadly flu." Initially, a few colleges (MIT included) opted for delaying the semester a few weeks. This led students to believe the flu was not too serious, resulting in students being caught mid-travels before being told how deadly the flu really was. This led to a lot of confusion and the MIT President apologized sometime that Winter in a letter (and later in The Corporation's yearly report).

--

Sources:

[1] https://news.stanford.edu/thedish/2018/03/15/100-years-ago-t...

[2] https://news.mit.edu/2020/3-questions-archivist-nora-murphy-...

[3] MIT Archives & Distinctive Collections
I’ve wondered what would happen if I launched a service called “Mastadon”. I suspect it would be swarmed by Americans.
Freedom of speech as laid out in the 1st amendment protects individuals from being arrested or censored by the government for speech. It does not protect individuals who violate the TOS of a private company, nor does it provide blanket protection in all cases of speech. Inciting violence and making false statements of fact are not protected forms of speech under US law[0]

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
> pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation

I think this is the saddest part of what's been happening recently. We don't need to separate ourselves from people with different viewpoints. I'm lucky enough to be friends with people on the left and the right, but I think that's only because we stay away from politics. In fact, it's something that used to be a Christian ideal - to be able to maintain a courteous friendship with someone you are fundamentally at odds with (See: Song of Roland, Christian & "Saracen" Knights).

It's not often something I see folks right of center doing, but it seems like a ton of people left of center have been distancing themselves from people with whom they disagree too strongly. It's too bad. We need to open up to more discourse, not less.
The story has nothing to do with Steve Bannon's podcast channel and everything to do with the sea change in how social media moderation policy is being interpreted and enforced.
ok. fine.

[..] The key to cooking chicken thighs is to start them in a cold cast iron skillet. Yep, you read that right. Cold. Season them well with olive oil, salt, and pepper, and then put them skin-side down in the skillet over medium heat.

Then just don’t touch them for 14 to 15 minutes. As the pan heats up, the skin will slowly get crispy. It might pop and hiss, but all is good. As long as you watch your heat, it’s almost impossible to burn or overcook these. [..]

i suppose the above is your understanding of NOT searing? english is not my first language.
Not all of us think these events are unimportant minutiae to be glossed over by <picks random front-page submission> rendering a sphere on a quad.
NICE. Now cheaters stay in their own servers.
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=arrteria...
LOL the best web app in the world according to who?
If you switch to KDE you're just going to have a different set of similar problems.
This is literally how it used to work before the FCC removed the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. Fox news was then founded in 1996.
Can you not tell the difference between talking to someone and cutting off their head?
The way things are going crypto may actually become a real currency and you would never need to convert to dollars.

I don't own any crypto and never thought I'd be saying this so soon but things have changed a lot in the past 6 months.
I do agree that people react differently based on the strength of evidence, including via careful debate and deliberation. But the law (both actual law and the privatized law of Community Policies by the likes of Twitter) is a far blunter hammer. Attempts to ban "making false and malicious statements" will always come with plenty of collateral damage.
> Parler actively removes people who bring in the “liberal” point of view.

Isn’t this what is happening to conservative voices? Further do you have evidence of this?

Do you know there’s gaming and other non political content on Parler? It was born out of politics so the majority of content is still focused around it.

Why don’t you see it for yourself instead of letting your imagination run wild?

I have been on Parler, briefly to validate all the claims of constant, unabated, hate speech and found nothing of the sort. Will I continue to use it? Unlikely, but I don’t use social media. I wouldn’t call it hotbed of right wing extremists though.
Whether Twitter is merely private media or something more significant is “to be determined”, and you are free to have your opinion, of course.

Going against the wishes of the American people has never been a winning strategy for...anyone, really. We shall see what the People want to do...
Not providing a standard view in their file picker is only one problem in a looong list of GTK/GNOME inadequacies.

Try not having any way to set up or interact with system tray icons in a toolkit that purports to be a "cross-platform GUI toolket". It gets better when you learn that system tray support was only removed recently by GTK developers because GNOME doesn't have one anymore. The worst part of this is that even if I submitted a patch that implements system tray support, they would just reject it. I know this because I asked them.

These days, GTK and GNOME seem to be designed only for gnome developers and no one else. All 5 or 6 of them.
There is a reason to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protecting.

However, that's not the issue that concerns me. My issue is the conflation of TOS, applied as is expedient, on a resource that is treated in the same way as a utility.
My guess is that if developers understood the business, they would understand how simplistic a lot of the business models are, and how much of the profit is derived directly from their skilled labor and yet how much of the profit goes directly towards someone else, and developers would suddenly realize they have leverage because they are essentially the profit model.
I thought this was something from the pylons project(1). The naming collision is unfortunate.

1) https://pylonsproject.org/projects.html
The example a[-1:0:-1] should be pretty understandable once you've spent enough time in the language -- you're inclusive at -1 and exclusive at 0, so the list is reversed and is missing its formerly first element (should one exist).

That logic is pretty consistent. The start is always inclusive, so it needs to be `len(a)-`, `-`, or `None`. The end is always exclusive, so you need to choose `None`. As a result, counting all the syntactic sugar available to you, you have 8 slices that can reverse a list. To name a few you have a[::-1], a[None:None:-1], and a[-1::-1].

IMO a much more interesting example for the strengths of inclusive indexes is a[len(a)-1:-1:-1]. The result is always empty, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think you included len(a)-1, you decremented to -1 exclusively (thus including 0), and hence reversed the entire list. The problem is that -1 is a valid index, and unlike the a[0:len(a)] case you don't have any values "before" the beginning of the list to include 0 in an _exclusive_ expression.

It's all a bit of a moot point though. I know Python especially chose its [inclusive,exclusive) convention largely because it wanted expressions like range(len(a)) to not require additional arithmetic for common use cases given that it had zero-based indexing. Julia has one-based indexing, so for common use cases an [inclusive,inclusive] pattern falls out as the most natural choice. I have no idea if Julia actually cared about that sort of thing or if such a convention came about by accident, but it seems like a clean choice for a one-based language.
There seems to be a some correlation between those who advocate for open workspaces and those who demand everyone be on video instead of just audio.
In 2020, COVID-19 was the 3rd leading cause of death in the United Staes - behind heart disease and cancer. It's the only cause of death in the top 5 that's transmissible from person to person.

People watch what they eat to avoid heart disease and wear seatbelts to prevent dying in car accidents. Why not wear PPE to prevent COVID-19?
I am not insulting you, and I think you are smart. I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect that banning people is a slippery slope unless you already think corporations and government have too much power, in which case the conversation becomes something entirely different and unbanning these people is not going to solve anything.
Hey HN, I have been working on this for years and the final product is finally done.

We did a tiny bit of work to rush it out the door in the wake of 'alternative social network' hype, sure. However, we are extremely proud of what we have created, and do truly believe that our system could foster a better environment for thoughtful discussion going forward.

Our team is monitoring this thread and would love to hear any feedback possible.

With love,
H
Yeah but this one wasn’t about telling your partner they look good in that shirt.

We are talking about rhetoric that lead to an insurrection on the Capitol and the death of 5 Americans.

I don’t quite understand why every one of these events devolve into high reductive free speech or slippery slope arguments. What is going to take for the people start accepting some personal responsibility?

From where I sit I see a group of people not accepting responsibility for some truly heinous acts perpetrated by their own “tribe” (for lack of a better word), so others are coming in and cleaning up their mess.

If that’s unacceptable or don’t like how it’s being done, then perhaps the most disarming thing would be to accept some personal responsibility, grab a mop and start cleaning your room.. not “it was the Democrats fault” has Rudy put it
I'm less interested in whether that's true and more interested in the fact that a broader demographic of people now actually care about the soft power inherent in a private social media company that is the sole medium through which millions of people communicate their politics and receive the information and influence that helps form their beliefs.

I was just out of high school during the Snowden leaks and have watched Americans who were at that time indifferent or considered him a traitor continue to spend time on these platforms over the years. The outrage then seems to have existed almost exclusively amongst the paranoid and those who have considered the effects of individual privacy in a democracy. This was always bound to happen, and it seems internally inconsistent to me in a capitalist free market for any individual to only now (post 2016) hold these companies accountable for perceived infringements if that same individual has up until now continued to use these platforms despite the public knowledge.

Put another way, if America's culture of public discourse had been of a higher quality back then, and our political apathy lower, this would not be such a surprise to as many people. It probably would be a non-issue, because we would have utilized any number of other readily available technologies for organization and communication to replace the products built by companies that exist strictly to create revenue for their stakeholders.
Then why need a manager?
It's muddled by the fact that the largest tech companies have been known to enter into secret (sometimes anti-trust violating) agreements. For all we know the other companies have an agreement to deplatform apps like Parler in the name of "free speech" but just to make sure that one of the big tech companies is dominant in a given space.

I'm not saying I think such an agreement exists in this latest spat of deplatforming. I am suggesting that that's the kind of conspiracy theories such capricious & unprincipled stances take (& yes - they are unprincipled given how much it depends on which political party is dominant when they go to do something).

A more benign framing of the conspiracy is that the tech companies desperately want to avoid any trust-busting activities by Congress so when the right is in power they don't do anything about right-wing extremism letting it grow & conveniently when the left is in power they deplatform right wing extremism that has grown, making legislators more anxious to enact any kind of regulation (just like the BS that MPAA played with ratings to avoid getting regulating).
> Then there are private persons and private businesses. Stripe and Twitter are clearly the latter. AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter.

Twitter and Stripe are acting in coordination - literally conspiring - with every other big tech company to take a specific action. When they do that they're acting as an illegal cartel and must be prosecuted accordingly. This is the kind of coordinated cartel behavior that banana republics and third world countries have that behave exactly like these companies are and do so out in the open (and always with the political support of the group with the most power, to target their foes). We're supposed to have anti-trust laws to deal with conspiring mega corporations.
Quite unfortunate, I haven't seen this before but I will be giving it a look.

Our original name 2 years ago was Nexus, but we couldn't get any domain we liked regardless of contacting squatters for years. Oh well.
Then what’s the point of a manager?
Sounds very true to me.

I'd summarize the problem as lack of real engineering leaders. It's as if programming/engineering is looked down on or not taken seriously enough.

- Biotech (in Silicon Valley to boot!)
I agree, if for no other reason than the repetition is boring. I don't see how members will stop submitting articles like this on their own: for some it seems to be a cottage industry to submit every piece they come across. How do you suggest HN address the concerns of members who consider moderating/curating/down-weighting such repeated submissions guilty of suppressing free speech and censorship? Particularly now, it would be perceived (as evidenced by so many comments) as part of the SV/Big Tech conspiracy to silence dissent.
The right to violent opposition to government is protected in the constitution isn't it?
So more accurately were saying we can ban opposition we don't like.
How are you meant to know whether children are present in time if you're not doing the lower speed limit?
It's neither brigading nor a broad new historical trend. A lot of people (myself included) simply see this as an emergency situation requiring extraordinary measures, and are okay with censorship of the Trump campaign even though we're anti-censorship in general. If it were Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, or even 2019 Donald Trump getting deplatformed like this, I'd be strongly opposed.
This is not (as) true of most other traditional media, e.g. local newspapers to the extent that they still exist. But cable news really is propaganda. Fox used to be the worst offender, but now they're all that bad, though playing for different teams of course.

There seems to be some kind of law that the larger a media outlet is, the more partisan it gets. Which is why social media is like the Exxon Valdez crashed into Deepwater Horizon and caught on fire.