skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There were two biggest centers of ancient books and scriptures after the demolition of the Great Library of Alexandria, namely Baghdad and Toledo. The Library of Alexandria is said to house about 100,000 book or manuscript titles mainly by the Hellenistic Greek scholars.

Of all people, the Christian Coptic Pope is the culprit who ordered the demolition of the great library in the 4th century CE. The Muslim Empire and scholars somehow managed to scrambled majority of the Greek civilization learning and books of what have been left after the destruction, and also significantly add their own knowledge contributions. The effort resulted in the two greatest centers of ancient texts in the world by the 11th century CE.

Baghdad center was ransacked to the ashes, and majority of the stored books and manuscripts demolished. The only surviving secondary or lesser center of the two was Toledo. Toledo fell to the Spaniard in 11th century. Benedict the abbot who in charged of more than 600 monastery has ordered the clergy to literally copy and also translate books and scriptures from the center in Toledo. In Toledo there existed original Arabic books on the new knowledge, Arabic translations of Greek books and scriptures that otherwise have been lost forever, and perhaps many copies of the original books of Greek civilization but we probably never knew the exact composition since this happened about a thousand years back. These copies of the books and manuscripts were ordered to be kept in these many monasteries, and the books and manuscripts remained there for centuries. If you think only a few works (less than five) of the ancient Greek works that were preserved during the time due to the Muslim empire and scholars efforts, I really want to know what are the things that you are smoking at the moment?
It sounds like we have agreed that it never claimed Parker is solely used for violence.

And, no, that's also not a claim it has made. They are just an arbiter of their TOS.

Your understanding of this situation seems to be defined by how you want the facts of the case to be, rather than what the actual facts of the case are.
Here are some links that provide more information on how we make and regulate the flu vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/how-fluvaccine-made.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947948/#irv123...
> I thought the typical goal of hackers and startups was to "change the world" and "make a difference".

I live in SV, and that's almost never the goal.

The goal of most hackers is to make their own lives easier ("scratch an itch.")

Startups often have a mission statement that is big enough to justify the effort of doing a startup and to generate external interest, but building a sustainable business or even a profitable one is first, and social good is ancillary.

What you're talking about are charities, and without auditing, even those don't "make a difference" except to the directors.
It's hard to differentiate between people who are different flavors of "more extreme than one's self"

If you're coming at this from the point of view who sees considers private companies doing the bare legal minimum to be fine and acceptable than pretty much everyone who think private entities should be more accommodating to speech than that is just going to look like various flavors of free speech absolutists/extremists.
> Clang does not implicitly simplify code as it parses it like GCC does. Doing so causes many problems for source analysis tools: as one simple example, if you write "x-x" in your source code, the GCC AST will contain "0", with no mention of 'x'. This is extremely bad for a refactoring tool that wants to rename 'x'.

Can someone explain this Clang “pro”? If a refactoring tool wants to rename “x”, it does it to the source, not the AST, no? And if “x-x” is turned into 0 by the parser, why does it matter? Assuming “x” isn’t volatile, “x-x” is indeed 0!
Can you describe the problems you've encountered with Prisma? I'm in the process of choosing an ORM myself, and Prisma seems to be the best option of those I've tested.
I recently started using Firefly-III and I am hooked. I wish I had exported csv data from all my banks, but 3+ years of transactions is still a great insight
Devil's advocate: If a small icy meteor struck the moon at the right spot it could potentially "uncage" these wee bears, as well as provide the necessary moisture for them to reanimate.
The “mother of all bubbles” that encouraged the 'tether' leaves drops of 20%
You misspelled the UK and Europe, the new centers of the pandemic for the second time
Jared Mauch is not a rando. He has gobs of experience running ops for actual ISPs including backbone engineering for NTT. Is it something that those without such experience can do? Certainly. Would it be relatively "easy" for them? Not anywhere close.
Apple has, as far as I can tell, always used CoreText on macOS.
> Hours later, in an attempt to apologize

Hours, attempt?

Have we lost our minds? What more do we want, the CEO must publicly self flagellate?

Do we seriously think a clean cut site like Etsy would allow this?

Why do people let the media play them like this. It's the exact same incitement Trump uses.

It's also not the one worn at the Capitol, which was far more incendiary.
then it would have to know who it is taxing? The same applies.

No, you cannot anonymously tax every transaction at some rate. Tax rates don't work that way, in a vacuum.
I understand where Moxie it coming from: user friendlyness (and candy) increases the user base in a demonstrable way. At the same time, adding code like this pretty clearly increases the attack surface unnecessarily. So there is a tradeoff they are making for everyone. I would much rather be able to disable that additional state space, even if I can't strip it out of the build entirely.

I also find it a bit crazy that the 'desktop' app is Electron, and they don't hint anywhere what a house of cards Electron is. I wouldn't run it except inside a VM, and even then I would have to accept that all the messages could be extracted remotely. They give no indication of their compliance with best practices (e.g. https://labs.bishopfox.com/tech-blog/reasonably-secure-elect...) with is disturbing.
It is, but if a CA refuses do sign a certificate without a good reason, I'd say it would make a lot of noise.
I am sorry to say this but your friends should really give a thought to why they are still working there. I understand that people have families to feed and mortgage, but they should at least consider changing jobs if they are software engineers.
What I see happening as a complete outsider is that "the community" (eg browsers, libraries) puts them under a tld against their wishes, to resolve this exact issue.
Whether they would benefit from it is a different question to whether they want it and are bothered jumping through the hoops necessary to use it.

I have been in a few places with governments that qualify as "regimes." I have used the internet in some places that have a reputation for internet censorship.

What I have observed is that most of those billions of people you say would benefit from a censorship-resistant internet have little desire to say anything worth censoring. Free speech is a particularly American preoccupation, and this value is not universally shared. The overwhelming majority of people living under such "regimes" are not engaged in active resistance to them. They just want to get on with their lives, make money, go out with their friends, etc.

And they don't speak English anyway so it's irrelevant to them if some American websites are blocked. Those are not the websites they want to look at. The people who do want to look at them use VPNs, which are tolerated as a loophole because total blocking with no possibility of circumvention is too much trouble and would have negative economic consequences.

And if they ever do want to say something that would attract the ire of the censors, what would be the point of saying it to a tiny audience locked behind a wall of obscure tech? They say it on systems that have mass adoption in those countries, and they accept the consequences, which are usually small, because by the time they put it on their social media accounts thousands of others are saying the same thing, and there is strength in numbers.

Sure, some people do want this tech and use the current iterations of it. Most don't. It simply does not solve a problem they feel they have.

In any case, the conversation was about censorship of the DNS system. Most censorship via DNS that I have experienced was either enacted by private companies who decided they didn't like being the registrar for sites they objected to on the basis of values, not legality, or it was enacted by Western states at the behest of private companies who wanted to defend their intellectual property.

And censorship is not all that useful. It happens a bit, but why bother when amplification of the desired message is much more effective and generates better press by definition?
It's comedy gold. Rather innocently I stepped through a worm hole and now find myself on the set of "Idiocracy - part d'oh!"
You might want to understand how we got here. States never should’ve been allowed to count 3/5 of their slaves who couldn’t vote of course, for electoral purposes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
More than the hardware, I want a macOS competitor that doesn't require me to grow a neck beard or have a voice assistant built in.
I would assume they simply haven't been around long enough, and didn't have enough money to throw at the issue yet.

I hope they will be back, stronger than before.
seems is working hard here.
I’ll try to address all of your points. I’ll start by saying that inciting people to violence is already illegal so I don’t think this particular point needs addressing further.

I use the term unpopular speech as a binary divider of speech between popular speech and unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn’t require protection by definition so the implication is that free speech laws exist to protect unpopular speech. I wasn’t suggesting that “I like Twilight” is equivalent to “<slurs> should be killed.”

Yes I would describe lies about vaccines, claiming that some groups of humans are subhuman, and doxing as both harmful and as examples of unpopular speech. Also they are unpopular because they are harmful rather than because they are untrue (doxing people is harmful directly because the information is correct).

All those things, despite being harmful, are legal. It seems that you are suggesting that we should consider banning some forms of unpopular speech because it is harmful. By banning it I assume you mean to make it illegal. If you mean something else please let me know!
And some chats are worse than others. Teams does this so poorly it brings my battlestation to its knees trying to do simple text search.
AWS deciding to no longer host Parler is not an act of civil war, modern or otherwise.
"I don't know what happened to the police, but if the violent insurrectionist mob in front of me calling for the death of Mike Pence thinks it's okay to go inside who am I to argue?"

Sorry, no.
Please explain the problem with relative time stamps.
Difficult to compete with companies that have billions of dollars to spend.
N.Y.P.D. Concludes Anti-Harassment Official Wrote Racist Online Rants
Qt Position Plugin for Gpsd
I don’t use either service, but the critical difference in my mind is that telegram is point-to-point or point-to-small-number-of-points medium whereas Parler aspired to be a means of mass-communication.

In my mind, one holds a different level of accountability when sharing private thoughts with friends as opposed to when wielding an insurrectionist bullhorn.

No doubt radical groups are sustained by access to private encrypted messaging, but they cannot grow into the sort of movement that fuelled the attempted coup that took place on 6January without wielding the reigns of mass propaganda.

I am all for freedom of speech, but liberty is not a death pact. We can’t sit idle while this group, that very nearly interrupted the peaceful transfer of power, openly recruits and plans their next attack.
Let’s observe the rest of the quotation in the headline: ... key decisions alone “without any supervision, without any accountability, and without any sort of dialogue or transparency for the kind of decisions that they’re taking.”

I don’t know what the content of the bill in question is, though I would guess it is well meaning while somewhat missing the mark.

I don’t think the statement is particularly objectionable. I feel like dialogue and transparency and accountability are pretty good things to have. But maybe dialogue and accountability are really just ways for politicians to have these platforms bend to their will. To me, it still feels better than these issues being decided as part of @jack’s part-time journey of self discovery[1].

It seems to be less extreme than requirements that certain broadcasters produce balanced coverage or that banks do not decide loans based on protected characteristics.

I sympathise with the argument that private companies should be allowed to do what they like within the bounds of whatever contract they have with their users. But Twitter and Facebook position themselves as quasi-public spaces welcome to all, and I think if you’re going to act more like a (classical) forum, you might need to be treated by the law like one. In the U.K. if you set up a path open to the public across your back garden and leave it accessible for long enough and consistently enough then it will become a public right of way and you’ll have to keep it open and accessible.

[1] there’s two other arguments here: one is that it’s a savvy political calculation to reduce the threat of legislation from democrats. The other is that it’s due to growing pressure from employees. I think I’m not cynical enough to believe the first alternative—Twitter seemed to be trying to act in the public interest after it was obvious who would win Georgia and before putting trump in Twitter jail, and if they want to curry favour with the new regime, why not make it obvious? I find the second alternative quite compelling but this is countered by the relative inaction for the past 5 years and the fact that it seems these companies are rarely subjected to more employee pressure than seeing a few memes being made about how awfully they are behaving. But maybe Twitter employees saw Twitter as appropriately trying to act as a public forum and we’re satisfied with the status quo until the events in the capitol.
> requires libpam-systemd

which depends[0] on systemd-sysv, which "will overwrite /sbin/init with a link to systemd."[1]

[0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/libpam-systemd

[1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/systemd-sysv
It’s not always about majority values.

Large part of the bill of rights exists to protect individuals from the majority.

Anti-discrimination, fair housing many other laws exist to protect against majority.

Democracy is not autocratic rule of the majority. It is rule by compromise.
Well summed up. Telegram in general provides more features and best of breed UX (among messaging apps) for the majority.

I've been using Wire (also using Signal protocol) but does not require mobile number to register (email and a @username), so 1 to 1 and group chats are end-to-end encrypted, but the UI really sucks, only using it to transfer files and messaging with a specific group. Telegram is a balance between security/control and eas of use (adoption).
> Apologies, the original title is terrible.

I wish there was an optional field to insert your own description alongside the original one. I have to agree, there is probably a large body of content that didn't make it to the frontpage just because of the title (and God forbid you change it unless the original one is a clickbait). But I can see how such functionality could be abused.
I don't know, yes maybe we're just misinterpreting each other.

I take the original comment at its word -- having to do with those workers for whom a "windfall" however you define it, is life-changing.
Every diversity thread on HN goes like this one
Plaintext bios
Real Artists Ship
Mercer family, then?
I associate hackers as a group that startups wants to hire not as having similar philosophies. To me this site is a very successful marketing/recruitment tool and not some indication that YC follows the hacker ethos.
> Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them.

An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom. I'd argue most of those are less extreme than Parler.

> When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them?

Isn't that what Trump wanted to do with the NFL after Kaep took a knee?

> Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate?

Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers.

You're trying to make this out to be a site of critical thinkers espousing different views that are being trampled on, while most everyone else recognizes it more like a revenge porn site.
How long has Amazon been asking them to moderate violent content? The lawsuit says it was a three day timeline, start to suspension, and then 36 hours until they were taken offline. I haven't seen any comment from Amazon talking about the timeline on their decision. I get a pit in my stomach thinking that in the span of 3 days an internet business with +10 million users can get shut down instantly. Was there no middle ground where they worked collaboratively to let Parler pause, clean up, and get moderation in place? Sure the CEO was bombastic, but in the lawsuit they said Amazon ghosted them and that their contract said they get 30 days.
I beg to differ. The original Handshake developers collected 10.2MM USD from sponsors and distributed it among free software and open source projects [0]. Actual USD were given out, not just magical internet money, eg FSF received 1 million [1].

[0]: https://handshake.org/grant-sponsors/

[1]: https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-receives-1...
None of those would immediately take Parler offline. Parler quickly found new lawyers, obviously, as they were able to release a very well-written complaint yesterday that described how AWS broke the law in several different ways when it gave Parler the death penalty at the height of its popularity.
Psst! They technically released the ECMAScript/JScript (definitely not JavaScript®)* interpreter, Chakra (https://github.com/chakra-core/ChakraCore).

* Trademark notice: JavaScript® is a registered trademark of Oracle America Inc.
>I am a "Parler User." I have an account and until it was taken down I used to check it every few days. Don't make assumptions about a person's politics from the mere existence of software on their device.

There's nothing wrong with Parler users or anyone else per-se.

There is, however, a problem with violent insurrectionists.

It's unfortunate that a small group of people planned and executed a violent attack on the seat of US government, although unfortunate is nowhere near a strong enough term for their acts.

I don't know you, but if you don't participate in violent acts to support your political agenda and respect the rule of law, I have no problem with you.

Assuming that's true, even if (and I don't know one way or another about that) I vehemently disagree with your policy perspectives, I will defend your right to hold and advocate for those perspectives. Because that's what a free society is all about.

On the other hand, those that believe it's okay to use violence, lies and intimidation to achieve their political goals have no place in a free society and should be shunned, ridiculed, and if they perpetrate acts of violence, punished.

I'd posit that anyone who believes in our constitutional system of government and the rule of law would agree with all of the above.
> Their job description is not "follow industry best practices" or "look for signs of a break in using their tools". Their job is to keep their company and customer's data secure. At this job they failed.

No. Their job is to use the resources they’ve been allocated to manage risk within the organization to the risk level senior management has agreed to accept.

Maybe that shouldn’t be their job, but it is. There isn’t a security team on the planet that gets to dictate security to the rest of the organization or unilaterally make decisions that influence the running of the business to achieve the level of risk mitigation that they themselves would prefer to attain.

That is putting aside the fact that defending against a determined nation-state adversary is a nigh-on impossible task that would require countermeasures like ‘don’t connect to the Internet at all’, ‘don’t hire anyone you haven’t personally known since childhood’, ‘hand-deliver your product to your customers’, and other equally impractical mitigations.

Nobody outside of Solarwinds knows if their security team succeeded or failed in the mission they were given.
Using RISC-V.
"Configuration as code" is a concept that really speaks to me. It's the ethos of Emacs (which I also use), and wmii does it as well.

<tangent>In fact, for a long time (now I'm not so sure) I even thought wmii did it better than Emacs: Instead of being tied to one language and one process, wmii exports everything as a filesystem, and you configure it by writing a program that inspects and modifies that filesystem. Instead of being tied to operating on in-memory objects in Lisp, you're operating on in-filesystem objects in the language of your choice. (Today, I still think configuration by exporting a 9p filesystem is a powerful idea, but I've come to realize some of wmii's assumptions are a little opinionated to where I'm less sure about "better than Emacs"). I'd previously used StumpWM, which is configured in Common Lisp and is very similar to Emacs; I wasn't very comfortable in Lisp (and am still not terribly comfortable in it, though much more than I was), and also at the time StumpWM wans't packaged in the main Arch/Parabola repos and wmii was.</tangent>

It's my understanding that most wmii users use one of the standard/example "wmiirc" scripts, and fuss with a few variables and make minor tweaks to customize it to their liking. My wmiirc (while inspired by the stock one), is written entirely by me. My code reads events from a socket on the filesystem, and then manipulates other files in the filesystem in response. It's like, even without taking the time to fully understand wmii's codebase, I feel like I have a very robust understanding of exactly what it's doing, as if I did understand the full codebase; because every action it takes is because of a line of code I wrote. And related to that, I'm pretty sure no other human in the world has their window manager keybindings set like I do; how it's configured is very personal and "mine".

I don't want a static configuration file, I want a dynamic configuration program. As a stupid example of "configuration as code": For most of the last 10 years I had a file of hex color codes to configure the color theme for wmii. Usually what would happen is I'd switch my Emacs color theme, then some time later adjust the wmii theme to match. A month or two ago, I got sick of that, and adjusted it to dynamically use `emacsclient --eval` to just query Emacs about the colors of its current theme, so I never have to deal with it again.
Does action in such a case rely on accusation or conviction? This is a question, not bait, because I don't know but I assume it would require conviction which takes time.
Tenants’ Right to Counsel Is Critical to Fight Mass Evictions