skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Most of the people at the Capitol were there for peaceful protest.

Okay, but there were many there that explicitly wanted violence, came prepared for it, and used the mob as cover.

> Trump did not tell them to kill politicians

Trump doesn't have to explicitly say "kill these politicians" to make the implication perfectly clear. He repeatedly told them he needed them to "fight" for him.

> His rhetoric was extreme, but arguably so is Bernie's

Bernie never incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building, while Congress ratified the votes for his political opponent.
I don't like Wikimedia nor the Wikipedias, but I don't get your point and I think you're incorrect (unless you're talking about Wikipedia's early days).

The way Wikipedia should work is by sourcing verifiable facts from reputable sources, and copyright violations are not allowed. I don't understand to what are you referring with "high quality, accessibly-written off-line content"? Britannica isn't high-quality and journalism isn't written by experts in the field.
Undoubtedly Schubert's illness had some effect on his mood, if not on his productivity. Whatever it was that led his writing to mature beyond his earlier work, it certainly did that.

I don't plan to start looking for more agony in his later works than his earlier ones. The 'Unfinished', written in the fall of 1822 (he moved into his parent's home, unable to leave until the following spring) has none. Similarly for the Rosamunde music, written before the Dec. 1823 premiere.

Then there's the Great Symphony, written 1825-26. Everywhere countless ideas and themes; In 1840 Schumann said of it "this work reveals life in every fiber, color down to the finest shading, significance everywhere, the most acute expression of individual detail ..." To what should we attribute the frightful 'battle' in the Andante? This isn't program music.

In the late chamber works, yes, I feel some deep regret - and anger. A great tragedy - but - his disease certainly was not his master.
I’m not the user you’re replying to here, but I apologize for making unconstructive comments earlier in the thread instead of flagging. Thanks for all the work you do to moderate this community.
What exactly do people expect to happen by identifying the capitol rioters?

Okay they get arrested, maybe charged with a crime. Others will get doxxed and most will lose their jobs. They'll become social outcasts.

Do you really want a bunch of very angry people to effectively be pushed into a corner, demonized by society and so on?

This will end up having very big unintended consequences.
He says things that resonate with their beliefs. America is great, America is good in the world, a strong America is a good thing, get out of foreign wars, get out of bad trade deals, bring back jobs, cut taxes. He did a lot of these things. He was completely unlike any other politician. He didn't try to waffle on both sides of every issue. He spoke his mind, in a brash, rude, blue-collar New York kind of way. He called people names. I never heard real hate in the things he said, though if you wanted to hear it, I'm sure you did.
Lets just hope its not crushed by communists, like it was last time.
If people want to support the actions of Jan 6, they should be clear about. Tired of wasting time talking around the real issue while they make up fake whataboutisms.

Because that's what this conversation is about. A murderous mob sic'd on Congress by the President because he didn't like losing an election. So again, to all the people defending this action, do you realize what you are defending?

And I'm happy to have this conversation. Folks want to minimize Trump's lies that directly lead to the deaths of 5 people, one of which was a cop beaten to death by his mob, then yes, let's have this conversation.
Please stop using HN for political battle. I had to go back almost three weeks to find a post like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25502390. When accounts start using HN for political flamewar, we ban them, regardless of which politics they're battling for. It's not what HN is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Where were you this past summer? "Mostly peaceful" was the way the corporate press described the summer riots that left dozens dead and did billions of dollars in property damage.

And the rioters were bailed out by politicians including the incoming VP.
The no-fly list is an important element of suppressing terrorism, foreign and domestic. It exists to prevent precisely this sort of situation - very few of these people were from within driving distance of Washington (or each other).

Whether it could do with more oversight is an independent question, with no shortage of people to ask it.
Yes. They tried to destroy the Capitol and capture elected officials. If you don't arrest them now then there will just be even more violent MAGA riots in the immediate future.
Interesting question, how did the article end up?

In general Wikipedia does have mechanisms to deal with this sort of thing, but admins don't always catch on early enough.
Give me an example of a video that was removed for "critcizing lockdowns" -- and I can guarantee the reason isn't the criticism, but the manner in which it is somehow "backed up" by disinformation about Covid.

Playing into this idea that somehow criticism isn't allowed is disingenuous.
He is making a false analogy. The Fire argument is tested in court and essentially regulated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the....

The disturbing part about these bans is they seem to be done unilaterally if not coordinated by private for profit tech companies.

Drifting from the original comment here but:
Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... what message does that send to the other world leaders?.
Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
It’s a widely held opinion, but it’s also complete bullshit with no evidence to support it.
he's not a dick, he's just a christian
Good riddance is all I have to say on the matter.
And not just the Capitol, but the Capitol while the entirety of Congress is in session counting the votes for the incoming President.

It's one thing if this had happened on a random Wednesday, but the timing is what makes it so disturbing.

It's straight out of a wannabe dictator's playbook. The fact that it was incompetent and disorganized doesn't change that.
Voting for Brexit like voting for Trump is partly to raise awareness to people who were harmed by previous policies, like globalisation etc. They don't expect that Brexit or Trump will solve the problem, they just want new order, mayhem and attention which might lead to improvement of their situation. Hillary didn't visit the rust belt, Biden did. In England they didn't care about the situation in the north, the rate of immigration and all the other known issues, now they do. So altogether there is some rational there, a risky one but at least it breaks the status quo.
> 28% of Americans believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to implant microchips in people

The craziest part is, the Gates Foundation did fund something very close to that: not microchips, but Biocompatible near-infrared quantum dots delivered to the skin by microneedle patches record vaccination.

It's essentially a tiny tattoo visible only in infrared light to track who has been vaccinated. So that rumor is more of a misunderstanding (of the difference between quantum dots and microchips) than misinformation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invisible-ink-cou...

https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/11/523/eaay7162
You could say that about every criminal though.
That's not my point. My point is that to understand a fairly rudimentary topic using only Wikipedia you already have to understand post-grad mathemarics concepts because the derivation and terminology is needlessly contrived because the editors are usually post-grads writing as though the article is for other post-grads. There are countless examples but I'm on my phone at the moment.
Sure looks a lot like an ordinary android phone, using Google's OS
A large portion of tech audiences fall into major Dunning-Kreuger traps. Because they understand something to an expert level they feel they can apply that to other ares ignoring the experts already in that field and their current findings. Combine that with a certain segment being pre-disposed to ESR style feelings and it all eventually turns into ./, a cesspool of trolls and people too high on their own supply to even recognize they've gone off the rails.
False negatives are a thing. Getting some moderation done doesn’t mean it’s adequate or accurate.
Crypto is its own banking system but going from fiat to crypto falls within the current banking system, unless you're willing to buy crypto with bundles of cash and risk getting mugged.
I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits.

I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech. My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance. I think there are simply some ideas that are too repugnant to not rebuke.

That said I don't like how centralized we've become on these existing platforms either. Monopoly on communication means it's too easy to let that window slide on what is acceptable speech to limit.
It is repeated because the advancement of civilization has enabled us not to think about the intermediary steps. It's a reminder to sometimes think about the process itself. It can lead to discoveries that can improve the entire process.

The 'erroneous truism' is like the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover." The meaning of the saying isn't that you must ignore the cover and judge every book by its content. Picking out a book to read from the library would be impossible. We still need to make decisions based on heuristics. The saying is simply a reminder that sometimes a poor outward appearance can have a gem hidden underneath.
A lot of the speech that's being labeled as "inciting violence" on Parler would feel different if it was spoken privately. The fact that it's being communicated publicly puts it in a different category, almost like you're saying it on TV or in the proverbial town square. I don't think this is setting any sort of precedent for attacking private communications.
I think the Signal surge is due to many people disagreeing with WhatsApp's new terms of use and privacy policy. I saw many people in my network advocating a move to Signal and Telegram after Facebook pushed the update.
> Add to that a surprisingly under-the-radar company culture which has avoided any major blow ups despite its community wielding so much leverage over the world's education and having to make a lot of difficult calls on a daily basis.

There's been and still is plenty of controversy regarding both the Wikimedia Foundation and its relationship to the community of volunteers. In fact I'd say the whole thing's kind of rotten, because of many complicated issues.
How long are we going to lock them up? How many people are we going to lock up?

My understanding was that there was 100k+ people in attendance at this rally and thousands of people were in the capitol building itself.
The MS pronunciation makes sense to me. Microsoft inherited (actually bought) SQL Server from Sybase. At Sybase the pronunciation was 100% "Sequel." I worked there for 7 years and don't ever recall hearing "S Q L."
i personally don,t, which is why i,m very careful not to harm them.
Among all my friends from Europe working in IT, no one works or as far as I know wants to work specifically in a FAANG.
After skimming a bit, I don't see how they plan to deal with abuse. Especially if there's no size limitation on files.
In this situation we're talking about a bunch of conspiracy nut jobs compared to a cold-blooded criminal that premediates their violent crimes.
The JPEG is markedly higher quality in many details, as Jake discusses:

> In fact, when I showed this article to Kornel Lesiński (who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to image compression), he was unhappy with my F1 comparison above, because the DDSIM score of the JPEG is much lower than the others, meaning it's closer in quality to the original image, and… he's right.

> I struggled to compress the F1 image as JPEG. If I went any lower than 74 kB, the banding on the road became really obvious to me, and some of the grey parts of the road appeared slightly purple in a noticeable way, […]

> The fine detail of the road is lost in all of the compressed versions, which I'm ok with. However, you can see the difference in detail Kornel was talking about. Look at the red bodywork in the original, there are three distinct parts – the mirror, the wing connecting the bargeboard, and the top of the sidepod. In the AVIF, the smoothing removes the division between these parts, but they're still mostly there in the JPEG, especially the 74 kB version.
I think this is a good response, but I do urge you to consider that there is not one specific form a failing Republic will take.

Also, I would argue that many of these things did take place. America is fortunate there was a competence problem, but I identify many of the items you listed here as having transpired.

A failed <thing> is still an attempted <thing>.
That’s the most interesting question to me. Why? Why are all these organizations willing to burn bridges?

Rational people can see this surreal juvenile drama..this theatre..for what it is..and they are also watching and noticing the cognitive dissonance that has gripped our country.

After Jan 20, the real damage would be the aftermath of tech industry’s blitzkrieg. There is a silent majority that is watching and wondering. And shaking our heads.

My fear is darker. Are they acting on their own/in tandem or are they acting upon orders? If so, from who?

These are not irrational people. These are the best run corporate behemoths and such decisions are not made by one person. And it’s too swift to be made via consensus or analysis. None of this makes sense.

There are going to be questions after the dust settles.
Is there an easy way to browse past versions of Wikipedia? I’m aware of the Wayback Machine, but that only works for a particular article.

I ask because it’s become increasingly obvious that articles are changed to fit the contemporary zeitgeist. Writers that died a century ago are recast into different people, depending on the popular ideology of the day. The choice of acceptable sources is also pretty disappointing. This problem is unique to the internet and doesn’t exist with hardback encyclopedias; one can still buy a hardback set of Britannica circa 1900.

Once 2050 comes around, I’d like to be able to read the 2010 version of Wikipedia, not the one deemed acceptable by the powers that be.
So let’s talk about Parler
It did with at least one thread. I was reading on [0] refreshed and found that all comments were replaced with a message that they’d been moved here.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708142
All the people who voted for Trump and who think the vote was rigged feel unheard.

Dr. King was quite perceptive.
So, once of a sudden, Clearview are the good guys?!
They can be mad. Without employment or resources to express themselves it means nothing.

Yeah there are crazies that will be fine with that, but what they can do without the support of “normalish” people is limited.

The alternative is to allow the escalation to continue.
Agree. This is a huge slippery slope.
Also, that the biggest snobs in a restaurant are not the patrons, but the waitstaff.
> I think the critical component to this conversation that its important to stay focused on is not Apple's removal of Parler, but their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices.

This has been going on since the App store first launched. I remember speaking up about this years and years ago. There were two sides, and well, we know which side one: people just accepted that Apple gets to dictate what goes on the iPhone.

So at this point, I have no sympathy for anyone who suddenly realizes: "Hey, what are we doing? What are we allowing?"

Every cheered when Apple prevented Flash from running on the device. And then porn apps. And then cheap "flashlight" apps. Or apps that did nothing except cost $1000 for a JPEG of a red gem. Guess what? This is the end result.

So I always look for sincerity when people propose fighting back against this now. Because now that it affects them, they want a change, but do they really want change, or are they just being selfish. And it's always selfish. People are fighting for their piece of the pie.

The "fuck you, got mine" attitude.

> No one in these comments is talking about Google.

Google I can side load apps freely. Others can operate stores and do this. Google does not have this problem.
Well, ya told them to make their own, and they did.

Kinda jealous, pretty cool to not be reliant on third party hosting
I think it sometimes depends on the area you are looking for information in.

In general an encyclopedia helps you solve the search paradox (That is: You can't find anything unless you already know something about it).

* If you use it to find information about things you are already very familiar with, you'll be disappointed.

* If you use it directly as a source for things you are not familiar with, you will be mislead.

However, if you use your encyclopedia (Britannica , Wikipedia, Encarta) as a jumping off point to find search terms and sources, you'll find it to be most useful indeed.

In short, an encyclopedia is more like a richer dictionary, rather than a primary source of truth. (it isn't called a tertiary source for nothing!)
If the cost is great enough, why hasn't a new standard been adopted? Is it that there aren't better options, or is it the challenge in getting enough buy in onto one specific option for it to be of use and capable of being seen as a new standard? The article mentions some newer options that are better but cost more, but where is the OSS version? Surely major websites have the incentive to create one that they can then use for free.
Okay okay. If you want to know how wikipedia feels about different news sources, they have a very nice article about it. It's even color coded. Green is considered reliable. Red is considered unreliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

So for instance, Wikipedia is seriously lacking in its cryptocurrency articles because you can't use coindesk or coin telegraph, even though they provide better coverage than CNBC and Bloomberg.
Let's add:

Walking over to a patrol car and shoot the officer inside - execution style.

Beating people from the other side to the ground.

Shooting and killing at least one protestor.

Burning down multiple buildings, stores as well as homes.

All well documented.

What happened on Capitol Hill is insane and should be an embarrassment forever.

As should the "riots" last fall.
The context as I see it -- one of the largest (if not the largest) social media megaphones controlled by a single human was recently silenced because of a recognition that this megaphone was being actively used to cause widespread harm.

The eff response to these actions is to emphasize that such blocking should be allowed so long as a consistent set of rules is used to perform blocking for
this reason across a whole network. And they suggest the communication scale of the actor being blocked should not be a factor in the management criteria applied to the speech flowing across a given channel.

That's a principled position but it's also ludicrous - and it's impossible to take advice from that position which can then be applied to the real world. It's as tho they've said "yes, we acknowledge that free speech faces limits -- such as no yelling fire in a crowded theater -- but we do not acknowledge the existence of crowded theaters". What kind of advice are we left to take from such philosophizing?

Text sent over the largest of megaphones is just not the same thing as text sent over the much smaller megaphones available to most social media users.

Taking the EFF position espoused here to an extreme for illustration -- suppose Alice decides to use the emergency broadcast system as her personal twitter account for a day. With her every message all the cell phones in the country buzz an emergency broadcast alert letting us know what Alice wants to say. She exercises her right to political speech to let us all know that she thinks birth control pills are evil -- and in so doing she consumes some seconds of attention from 300 million people. At the same time -- she cross-posts to her twitter where she is followed by 50 people.

The EFF are more or less suggesting that the same principles and rules should apply to her twitter posts and her emergency broadcast system posts.

But in reality -- do we consider these information publishing channels directly comparable? Are we forced to accept that because these are both information publishing channels -- the set of things Alice is allowed to say on both channels must be the same?

Obviously we are not forced to take this position. And obviously this is a bit of a silly example since we all already know that different rules apply to the emergency broadcasting network -- yet we don't use the word "censor" to describe the set of things we don't want Alice to send out over the emergency broadcast network -- and why is that?

Going back to
my claim that they are silencing themselves -- I think the EFF position in this article is basically abstract philosophy and that they are going out of their way to avoid addressing any of the specifics required to guide action in the real world. They had an opportunity to say something useful -- instead they said nothing in more words.
Oh no, you misunderstood me. I meant that if you, personally, can’t decide - for yourself - that something is sentient, then you should assume it’s sentient. Does this make (more) sense?
they could call it skynettery afterwards xD
It's not ok to create HN accounts for political battle. It's not what this site is for, and doing it will eventually get your main account banned as well. Please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html