skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what social media platforms are and how they operate, all of which is laid out within the contractual obligations of the mutually agreed upon terms of service.

If you post something to say, Twitter, that is now their content that you have given to them for their benefit with the sole purpose of extracting value from the attention the content you handed over to them brings through the sale of advertising. That sale of advertising is what keeps the servers up and the engineers keeping it glued together paid. The surplus is profit distributed to the shareholders. This is of course an exchange where the value you extract stems from having your content amplified or enhanced in some way by their service. If for any reason any actor’s interaction with the service is determined to lead to a net loss, the only appropriate course of action is to remove that actor from the system.

The real problem isn’t a free speech or censorship issue, it is an anti-trust issue where a single entity has such an overwhelming control of a particular stream of media that their actions have excessive impact on the business and social ecosystems. Whether it is an anti-trust issue can be determined on how difficult it is for a competitor to establish themselves profitably in the marketplace. What sort of moats would need to be overcome to properly compete with e.g. Twitter given the monumental first mover advantage of that particular media stream... the media stream they created and proved?

In simpler terms, whether Facebook / Google / etc banning something they deem detrimental to their financial success having potential egregious impact on culture, society... whatever, is more a sign that these products have established themselves into the market in a way that’s fundamentally problematic and needs examination and effort to alleviate.

Should they turn into a public utility would change the entire business model and power dynamic and is not really relevant to what’s happening here. If for example the United States nationalized AWS and provided it as a civic web services infrastructure, free speech laws would be understood under a very different power dynamic. Censorship issues would be brought up and likely dealt with systemically, like not allowing the people running it from looking at what you’re hosting (you can organize a terrorist attack on the United States over the US postal service, by consequence of its intentional design).
Open source federal income tax calculator / filer

https://ustaxes.org/w2employerinfo

https://github.com/thegrims/UsTaxes
> I will never understand how a group looked at overly-complex Makefiles, determined it was hard to write complex build scripts, and concluded: "I should write a Makefile meta-language that can generate these."

If that's your personal experience then it seems you do not have any relevant experience at all developing and maintaining software projects, specially if they need to be cross-platform and cross-tech stack.

For example, it's clear to anyone with any basic experience that providing an abstraction over C++ compiler's so that you can ensure your C++ project can and does build successfully regardless of C++ standard, compiler make and model, and eve os and os distribution is extremely valuable.

Can you show me a Makefile that handles that?

With Cmake you get the exact same C++ project building flawlessly on macOS with Xcode and clang, windows with any version of MS Visual Studio, and of course any linux distribution.

You just download the project, run Cmake to generate a makefile, and build

How do you expect to even run a Makefile the same on all those combinations?

There are very good reasons why Cmake is the de facto standard.
You never get to verify that they key you’re signing with matches the key on your correspondent’s device. You are trusting Apple with it, and they could be compelled to MITM your future conversations. This is in contrast with, say, Signal, where you do get to compare keys (and it’s open source with reproducible builds).
Thread on Picking Investors
Kavanaugh's nomination was stopped by a mob too.
(I'm responding to the second edit).

I think you massively underestimate the psychological effect of seeing a first-world country reduced to a third-world country if Taiwan doesn't surrender very quickly. Also, the realist concern is classic 'balance the strongest power' dynamic.

I don't think China has to worry about an outright official blockade, but you'll end up with a Cold War rerun and Chinese companies being unofficially driven off the West, SK and Japan working together, possible SK/Japan nukes at the very least. China played a lot of cards trying to keep other countries not ganged up against it, best not ruin it to get a devastated province. Simply put, any starvation scenario where Taiwan decides to fight will be a disaster for CCP too.

So I believe any CCP strategist understands it's better to sacrifice men and take Taiwan outright without turning it to Yemen (a preference which you stated as well). A quick enough operation will be ignored by the world for reasons you provided, and they may well be in a position to do that soon. The 'wait out months/years and publicly starve out Taiwan' is incredibly poor in comparison.
It's not really correct to say that Skynet stores all files 'by default in cleartext'. Skynet is a platform for building applications. Whether data is encrypted or cleartext is up to the app developer.

The files uploaded via https://siasky.net/ are cleartext, but the files uploaded via https://skysend.hns.siasky.net/ are encrypted. There are also entire dropbox-like apps that are encrypted by default, for example https://marstorage.hns.siasky.net/

Most Skynet usage is app-driven, and therefore whether or not things are "encrypted by default" will depend on the apps that are used.
There was never world where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Hell, it used to the christian right that was one pushing censorship.
“Just because private company is allowed to do something, doesn’t mean they should” - so then put that up for public debate. I think we did, Section 230 in the context of posting digital content.

It boggles mind that we are trying to keep a high ground on free speech while the rug is being yanked away from our bottoms.

+ Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people.

I get it. Free speech is important, especially when you disagree with someone. This is how society progresses. You can have the free speech still, just make sure you don’t rally up people to take up arms on bogus claims. They’ve had their free speech chances to contest in court, have peaceful debates and be civilized.

r/conservative, as much as you disagree with them, is still ok and fine. They’re respectful for the most part.
Yes also this sometimes.
and they want to make you believe that Signal is the answser, why wouldn't they ban Signal too, people use it to sell drugs
That’s right, the south wanted 1 and the north wanted 0.

What I’m saying is that it “increased” the representation versus 0. Which is equivalent to your formulation that it “decreased” the representation from 1. In other words, 3/5 is more than zero and less than 1. No disagreement here.

My point is that it wasn’t about giving rights to black people, it was an argument about how much representation slave owners would have.
> the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.

This is the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerant violent, discriminating voices like say, the Proud Boys, that intimidates other diverse groups from participating. Their intolerance becomes mainstream, making society less tolerant over time.
Technology is easy and scalable. Typical challenge for beginner startup to gain audience and traction is not a problem here either.

Unchain yourself from dorseys and zuckerbergs.
The important point is that the government has the power to make those exceptions, and exercises that power. It's the difference between absolute free speech and the messy reality we have.
In the early days most people outside of wikipedia assumed that nobody would contribute to such a project without being compensated, that wikipedia is a communist pipe dream etc. The quote is meant as a play on the quote how communism works in theory but not in practise.
The people who claim to be willing to debate aren't necessarily willing to debate though. Someone like a Richard Spencer is really looking to gish gallop and not debate
Yäss! Yäss! Mäd to ze mäx!
Its "tump" not temp.
The UK did this really well with the erstwhile Tier1 visa program: no work restrictions (including starting your own company), but show us annual earnings of more than, for example 2x of the general populations average salary when you apply to renew every 2 years.
But usr is user
I think the point is that these articles don't prove anything of the kind. The first one "examines the ways in which Cultural Marxism has moved from the ‘fringe’ to the ‘mainstream’", paying "particular attention to the localised use of the conspiracy in the ‘Safe Schools’ controversy of 2016–2017, whereby Cultural Marxist tropes were imbued with local concerns about sexuality and gender issues". The second one "argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory", focusing "on three of the main proponents", and shows that it "misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s ideas and influence", the latter not being obvious from a quick reading.
I love how every time someone says “company X shouldn’t do this” someone else replies and says “actually, company X is legally aloud to do that“.

Yeah.. we know. Nobody is arguing that they can’t do it. Only that they shouldn’t.

It’s a fun straw man though
"To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people."

That does not seem obvious to me AT ALL. Most radical movements in history had no access to the Internet and relied on personal contact to radicalize, e.g. preachers in mosques. This also creates deeper bonds among the members.

If the result of deplatforming from Twitter is that the organization shifts to "meat world", you probably have a more dangerous opponent on your hands.
When Israel decides they want to recognize the rights of the Palestinians, as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to come out and play.
The recipe is not patented. This would force them to disclose it. The same goed for WD40. It's not patented because they don't want to disclose the formula.
Ok. Then what book can I read to understand this. I've read two books on haskell but they were beginner stuff though
Var rhymes with char.
The merged entity known as Centurylink/Lumen/Level 3 is a common carrier unlike Twitter, Facebook, etc, they have no need to cease serving anyone and would lose their status as a common carrier if they were to start moderating the content of the data that clients move over their pipes.

If served with an injunction by a court, or if the user failed to pay their bills, those are the only cases in which you would see them stop serving a client.
For the record, I make $300/month as a hired software engineer here in Russia. I would prefer slightly better conditions, than no such opportunity at all.
What?

They're just deciding they don't want to host their content on their servers. Which makes sense because some of their content is illegal. Amazon wouldn't host a message board for pedos eithers.
Its snarky and unrelated to the point the original comment was making.
> This is the exact situation in which facial recognition is very bad.

No, it's not.

> Imagine the stasi had it?

Yes, the problem there is the Stasi, not the technology. There is literally no technology that the Stasi having would be a good thing, including pen and paper. Or things so basic we don't tend to think of them as “technology”, like, say, language.
Elite in pollitical sense does not equal "someone with college degree".
Parker was being used to promote and organize 2 more riots on the 19th and 20th in the exact same manner it was used to promote and organize the Jan 6 riot that ended in 5 deaths. Also, sedition, what was being planned and organized on parler, is a federal crime, it’s in the criminal code.
I think I'd better explain the "1776" comment a bit better:

America was not the only country to have a great revolution. Starting almost a century earlier, and (in part following america's example) up to this day, many countries have seen revolutions or reforms. The world has continued to evolve and grow.

Americans are often taught of American exceptionalism, that an enlightened America is (was) alone in the dark.

Perhaps (nearly) so in 1776; But the fact today is that America is no longer the only nation with a liberal world view, social progressiveness and openness to diverse views. Now many other nations stand beside it or even ahead of it. This is not a bad problem to have of course (or even a problem at all! )
Then the celebrities will all go to platforms that don’t restrict them in that way, and their fans will follow them. If my kids see a meme and they can’t share it with their friends due to a limit, again try will just go to a service without such a limit.
I think what happened in 2020 qualifies. While tame compared to the Civil War, it was comparable to the upheaval that happened about 50 years ago, and certainly not easy to predict.

> between 15 million and 26 million people participated at some point in the demonstrations

> arson, vandalism and looting caused about $1–2 billion in insured damage between May 26 and June 8,

> By early June, at least 200 American cities had imposed curfews, while more than 30 states and Washington, D.C, had activated over 62,000 National Guard personnel in response to unrest.

> By the end of June, at least 14,000 people had been arrested at protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_United_State...
Yes, particularly after observing how poorly society is adapting to pervasive social media.

3-4 years ago, I was nearly a free speech maximalist. I hope we figure out a way to properly educate middle school and high school students about cognitive biases, logical fallacies, statistical fallacies, and other tools needed to properly deal with social media. Right now, society is just adjusting very poorly to the advent of social media.
But do we have a responsibility to not hinder someone else's free speech? Not with regards to the current post but just thinking in lines with what you said.
That video was not removed for criticizing lockdowns. It was removed because it was misinformation, pseudoscience and conspiracy nonsense.
That already happened though. Black people aren't allowed to have guns. That's why police shootings now have to mention "unarmed black man" because being armed is breaking the law for a black man.

You just aren't the free thinker you think you are
Another thing named Skynet?[1]

[1]- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet
If you step back on after running, you can figure out roughly how much water you need to replenish; Perhaps both numbers are useful?

When LenPEG 3 is done running, it doesn’t consume any space. Perhaps the first measurement is just considered as runtime overhead.
The example on the page "Art Discussion" is so cringe.

They know exactly what kind of crowd free speech first platforms draws. And it most definitely isn't someone discussing the Q3 results of their art gallery or the merits of Hoffmann's art style.
Case in point, the fascists in India became very concerned about Trump being deplatformed. They decried it as a lack of tolerance, because they knew there’s no difference between what Trump does and what they do.
The way things are going - mentioning his name might become a criminal offence by the end of Jan.
They are relying on Wordpress to support the blog we both just read, and their entire platform is a barely maintained fork of Mastodon: https://code.gab.com/gab/social/gab-social/-/commits/develop

This is not a high effort endeavor, the reskinning Gab did was the bare minimum to steer users to buy Gab Pro and try to stop said users from getting scammed by competitors (press F12 on a Gab page on the main site to see their hilarious warning message).
Twitter is not on top just because of their technology. They are on top due to their users. RSS would only be worth it if people read it. I don't think you could get people using it.
Yep, it nicely demonstrates how much cooperating strangers can achieve in a few years... and how much of that is tarnished by petty political and ideological disputes these days, due to lack of ethical standards and education.
>Speech without a platform isn't speech at all

Then nothing's really changed. Before social media people would write letters to the editor or be interviewed on the radio or TV. Publication of said speech was always at the sole discretion of the platform holder.
A mob was literally breaking in the room where the VP and other politicians were. Yelling that "Pence must die" ( on some of them videos).

You can literally see some messages that were on Parler in the articles were Amazon, is banning Parler: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... . That's crazy talk
Ask HN: How do I get started mastering radio?
I would disagree in the case of platforms which are monopolies. Or in this case let's call it a triopoly because they collaborate on things like this.

Same like how public utility companies cannot shut off your power or water because they don't like you.
Is this common in Russia? It seems low even for a junior and even in Russia. When I look on Upwork and Freelancer, decent mid and senior level developers in Russia/Ukraine etc seem to charge $30/hour on the low end.

Can't you freelance for more money if that's true?
I take your point. This didn't rise to the level of the coups we've seen in other countries, typically carried out by the military.

But it's also something more than "plain" sedition. Not only was it a group of nutjobs with little chance of success, but they were organized and/or encouraged by the outgoing President himself, and were aided by the anemic security that was also coordinated by the President (via recent appointments to the Pentagon, decision to discourage or deny National Guard assistance, etc.)

That tie to Trump, along with the intentionally weak security, adds another dimension to this.

EDIT: I read your link after the reply above. Thanks, it captures the nuance pretty well.
Ah! Which country are you in, if I may ask? I'd like to look it up!

(In return: I'm currently in Germany, Netherlands. These countries are considerably left of the USA in terms of eg socialized health care and education, views on woman's rights, and general permissiveness and openness to new ideas.)

What do you consider right/left wing in this context, and how is the country you are in right wing? (Perhaps you're in Singapore or so?)
Yes but also sort of no? It's a whole can of worms, which Web standard is done by who
I’m not sure you read the article, which was fantastic, because your comment reads as a reaction to the title and not the body of the work.
> That mechanism is judicially auditable. The AI is not. We should not be arresting people based on the output of an unauditable mechanism.

Are we, though? If “ClearView AI gave us a hit” is being treated as probable cause sufficient for an arrest warrant, that's a problem.

If it's being used as a tool to generate leads to investigate and traditional evidence is gathered and presented, I don't see a big problem.
Thing is, if we give up on these people like this, we help radicalize them. This is a platform that was created specifically for people that were kicked out. If we keep taking their platform they will keep getting angrier.

If there is a solution to this, it involves empathy and honest engagement. Not banning and blocking, at least not of the rank and file people.
> I think modern cmake mostly has the right ideas, but the overall implementation is poor, mainly due to legacy.

I fail to see how cmake's take on build targets is "poor". Can you provide an example that helps explain your point of view?
>But the whole idea of attaching a one dimensional number to a preference seems flawed.

I think the idea of attaching a one dimensional number to almost anything in computer mediated communications is wrong.

I believe we should rate things with a vector, not a scalar.

Example: Your post Is 4.5 insightful, 0.2 snark, 5.0 truthful, 0.0 political
And that the VP is even from their own party makes it even more absurd.
That might have been a problem a few years ago, but by now many content creators are not solely relying on advertising money (which itself was prompted by YouTube fucking up).
Right, especially if the alignment within the file is a multiple of the page size, and it's a shared mapping, many OSes can make a zero-copy read directly from non-volatile storage into the process's memory (buffer cache pages mapped directly into the process's address space).
I've been working on a minimal calendar app on my spare time. I only use Calendar for everything note, so having an app for me is both satisfying and something I wanting to build for a long time. I will release the app on the app store soon.

> https://vinhnx.github.io/clendar-site/
Right, but encoding video is literally just pushing numbers through a function, is it not?
"Hang Mike Pence" was temporary. But there are plenty of other examples.

I'm old enough to remember Kathy Griffin and Trump's severed head.

Or "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down". https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330

How is that not the same?

Regardless of whether there policy should or shouldn't be to remove violence, the bias in how they apply it is very clear.

EDIT: Feel free to downvote. Don't hold back.
Does this affect images etc as well? I use an Android phone, so unfortunately can't play with it.
Doesn't that guarantee that foreigners will continue to be paid more than locals?
Humans Have Gotten Nicer and Better at Making War
Without commenting on the rest ...

> Then there is the always present double standard. Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?

Actually, they intervened and stopped it.

https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-stops-hang-mike-pence-trend...

Also note:

> Journalist Yashar Ali tweeted a screenshot of the topic trending, indicating that the phrase had been tweeted over 14,000 times. Ali noted that most people were "quot[ing] some of the insurrectionists" at the Capitol, rather than making direct threats against Pence. He wrote that the phrase "shouldn't be allowed to trend."

See also despite the URL:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/twitter-allows-hang-mike-pence...

> “We blocked the phrase and other variations of it from trending. We want trends to promote healthy discussions on Twitter,” a company spokesperson told The Post. “There are Rules for trends — if we identify accounts that violate these rules, we’ll take enforcement action.”
They are saying he's famous for it, not that other people did or did not do it, nor are they saying its a good or bad thing that he is famous for it.

The world is an unfair place. Sometimes its hypocritical. Saying that he should not be famous for it has no bearing on whether or not he is actually famous for it.