skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is there a significant difference between the manipulation activity on real-identity social media and pseudonymous media?

FB and Twitter are places where the real participants mostly use their real identities, whereas places like Reddit and HN are just politely pseudonymous. I wonder if the collateral of real identities means a greater or lesser degree of manipulation.I don't use those other sites because I'm less interested in connecting online with people who use their real names, as it reduces to a personal brand performance divorced from ideas and truth.

Whether we're engaged in discourse or politics seems linked to whether we're using "real" or abstracted identities. While I think people who can't abstract their ideas from their identities are the ones who get manipulated, consuming pseudonymously produced junk could have a similar but different impact.
Why the focus on base salary alone? Total (liquid) compensation is what matters, as the high paying places tend to be either equity (FAANGs) or bonus (finance) heavy. And 200k+ GBP TC is very good pay for UK market, probably 99th percentile
gender and sex are not correlated. one is a preference and the other a biological status. gender indicates to people where you view your place in the social structure, sex describes your physical or hormonal status

(not one to one correlation, good points)
Great. So because of our glorious War On Drugs, now drugs are being hidden all over the place where curious little kids are liable to find them. Can we please legalize yesterday?
Some NHS organisations have started using them. https://twitter.com/EddyLaurie1/status/1240346693931057153?s...

It's important for healthcare safety that people feels safe to discuss their gender and pronoun badges are a small sign that the wearer is a safe person to speak to.
The end of the summer. (Update on 2020 for Xena project.)
It might be illegal for you to possess such data after you were asked to destroy it, yes, at least in the EU.

The GDPR talks about "data controllers", and citizens have the right to demand such controller remove their personal data. A "data controller" in this context means you knowingly possess the data and are in the position to make decisions about it. You're not a data controller, tho, if e.g. you run some service that allows users to upload data, without your involvement and direction and also do not decide how to use such data. E.g. amazon would not be liable if people put a data dumb in their cloud (unless amazon used the data themselves, instead of just storing/hosting the data at the behest of their customers).

Even before the GDPR there have been related laws and court cases, like the case that culminated in the "right to be forgotten" based on a decision by the European Court of Justice, which may well come into play here. I also remember a case in Germany, where a women allowed her partner to take intimate pictures of her, then after the relationship ended had a court order him to destroy the material (not a revenge porn case, there was no allegation he ever shared any of those pictures), meaning it's not always about what's public.

I don't know how California's mini-GDPR compares.

Then of course there is still the avenue of copyright law if the stuff is put online. Just because a parler user gave parler the permission to distribute a certain piece of content doesn't mean that everybody else has the same permission. I'm pretty sure Parler didn't make people assign them the copyright (which isn't even possible in some jurisdictions), therefore the people who posted on parler still retain the rights to their content. They can therefore use the DMCA or other similar jurisdictions around the world to demand takedowns.
PineTime is even cheaper and probably more powerful, but looks less approachable than arduino.

https://pine64.com/product/pinetime-dev-kit/?v=0446c16e2e66
> Now, that's not to say I am against labor saving devices.

That's good to know. Because "labor saving devices" is by no means the field of machine learning. A hammer is a "labor saving device" if all you have are rocks. I've got the impression that a lot of people conflate machine learning and robotics with labor saving in general. Of course compared to the state of art machine learning let's us hope to find magical shortcuts to get our work done. But an IDE, a word processor, or a compiler is also a labor saving devices. As well as a piece of paper, it is way faster to doodle on a piece of paper at your desk than finding the next cave to doodle.
Apple insistence on secrecy bites Hyundai
"Can Apple's M1 do a good job? We cut things down to unrealstic sizes, turned off cores, and p-hacked as hard as we could until we found a way to pretend the answer was yes"
I dropped out of a PhD in RFIC/MMIC design. Gradient student descent and lack of first principles reasoning hits too close to home. Maybe it's just the nature of highly empirical engineering disciples to just throw many hours of grad student and simulation time blindly at problems in hopes that one lucky fella finds a new optimization.
I kind of agree, but it isn't just that europe doesn't innovate, there is a lack of VC infrastructure and it's kind of antithetical to the managerial culture.
I am like your colleagues.

As humans we have been hardwired to recognize biological males from biological females for million of years. So when I speak to someone wether in person or online, I will use the pronouns associated with their biological gender, or masculine if I really don't know. That is the way I have always done so that I can focus as much as possible on what I have to say rather than how I say it. Content > From.

I really do not care about the sexual orientation, food preference or political opinion of the people I interact with in a professional environment, and I don't expect people to really care about mine.
Gradual / optional type declaration, grammars as a first class language feature, async / parallel programming, rational numbers, lazy evaluation, OOP with classes and roles and an underlying metaobject protocol.
"Neural Network weights are learnt via Gradient Descent and Neural Network architectures are learnt via Graduate Student Descent."

Like it!
> > Signal was used by Chinese dissidents and were whisked away by the CCP. The most likely proposed method was that the GBoard (google soft-keyboard) was "updated" with a poison update that uploaded everything typed. What defenses does Signal have against that? And will Signal warn against unverified GBoard updates that haven't been vetted?

> If you can't trust your OS then you've lost already. This complaint is also fun considering the number of people who yell about banks doing things like refusing to run if nonstandard keyboards are installed.

There are also open source and 3rd party repos (F-Droid) that could provide properly vetted soft keyboards. And I'd also mention that Signal is not available on F-Droid or Guardian Project's repo.

And Signal can also run basic checks for sanity of the system, and loudly warn if things aren't as the application expects.

> > Signal still demands your phone# to make an account. This by itself is unconscionable for an application that purports to be for security and privacy.

> The alternative appears to be "Signal knows which users you have communicated with", which is much worse. All sorts of interesting things can be obtained from the communication graph.

All of the encrypted comms goes through their servers. They also prevent others from running federated Signal servers. That would lead that they have access to both who, where (ip address), how long (by length of encrypted data), and with whom.

The same metadata was/is the basis of the NSA's spy projects. Metadata is just as important as the very content.
Okay, I should have worded my comment more carefully.

These applications seem to firmly fall into the "I'm willing to compromise on quality if I don't have to pay a living person a wage" niche, so they're value-destroying, not value-creating.

Are there examples of value-creating applications for ML? (From a business point of view; obviously the "shitty translations but at no cost" proposition creates value for the average Internet user.)
What do you think those consequences will be? Other than depriving white supremacists and domestic terrorists of a platform? There seems to be this fantasy of ideological purity that all speech is created equal and "we"—meaning, say, people who receive death threats on a daily basis and not the people conceiving of this "censorship"-free paradise—just have to "live with it."

Nope. We don't have to live with violent insurrections. We don't have to live with sieges of government buildings. All speech is not created equal: there is such a thing as hate speech and speech that inspires violence, and that is distinct from a youtube channel about legos or makeup or video games. They are different things, and people and platforms can decide to say no.

I'm seeing this pattern of hysterical hand-wringing that deplatforming or "canceling" terrorists is somehow a bad thing because it means that—what? now a platform can do what they want with their platform in accordance with their own terms of service? There's this nonsensical and baseless extrapolation that now that platform will just suddenly decide to "censor"—what? who? What exactly are you worried about?

People have been "censoring" and "canceling" each other for as long as there have been human cultures, because there are limits to what a culture will accept, and few cultures are so ideologically pure that they'll accept angry armed mobs storming capitols because "we should debate them". People who are flipping out about YouTube/Twitter/FB/etc limiting the speech of violence-inducing criminals live in a fantasy world where they've never come close to being the target of that speech, and know they never will: they can sit comfortably at home in front of their computers and blithely evangelize about how America is doomed and now America is China and wah wah wah wah because it's trying to do what it's always done, and what it exists for, which is protect its own citzens.
In addition to stating the name as the identity, it would be best to state gender, pronoun, and why not also race and religion? They are all part of identity.

Better not. The professional signature is not mean to show your private identity. It is supposed to identify your professional identity, which should not include race or gender. Your private e-mail signature can include unicorns, your work signature should be kept professional and that means excluding private data.

In some job functions, you do not even state the name - you are simply a representative of the company. First line support is often like that. The "Jane" you think you meet in a support chat may be Asmee or Ananya in real life.
> To me the practice feels like taking off one’s lower body half garment to expose the genitalia.

Do you feel the same way about Mr/Mrs titles?
What makes me think is that people before this and photography didn't have precise recordings of anything natural. Images, sounds, videos... all that was totally evanescent and inspecting it wasn't even in the people's mind I guess.
More precisely, we could do it, but it would probably take years and the result would be inferior to what we have today.
I’m trans and agree with this, though I offer another reason to avoid making it compulsory.

Before I came out I felt very awkward with regards to my own pronoun display. I wasn’t ready on one hand and on the other I felt terrible seeing other pronouns even if it was attached to my deadname only.

I’d encourage people to do it if they’re comfortable with it on a personal level as it can be a very personal thing. I also want to thank all of those who do add it. It’s a big deal for many of us and can make a real difference in exchange for very little effort.
>To me the biggest issue that was raised by the Trump bans is that we shouldn't be relying on these channels for communication with our governments and elected representatives

What I find most alarming about this, as a European is that; because these USA based companies so totally dominate the social media landscape, not only are they defining what opinions it's acceptable for US citizens to express [which is invidious enough] but they are effectively imposing these standards on the rest of the world too.

When you couple this with the fact that the USA pretty much decides political policy for most of the western world too, I really fear that [more than ever before] we're living in a world where US 'correct think' and US 'correct act' are the only acceptable forms of behaviour, outside of Chinese totalitarianism and Russian nepotism.

Not only that, but we seem to be so in thrall of the US that we even have to adopt your social problems as our own. A classic example of this is the recent George Floyd protests in the US:

All of a sudden, all over Europe, virtue signalling folks were going on BLM marches vandalising statues etc. Now, we may have had our problems in the past but, here in most of Europe, the kind of nasty emdemic racism that seems all too prevalent in the US barely exists any more. It's largely been consigned to that handy receptacle 'the dustbin of history'.

But, here we were, all of a sudden stirring up division and conflict in our own societies because "If the USA is nasty and racist then we must be nasty and racist too!" And, of course, the media were falling over themselves to unearth black celebrities to recount the traumatic tale of how, sometime between earning their fifth and tenth million, someone once looked at them in a funny way in a supermarket.

I just can't understand why the almost total domination by the US of European cultural and political life is a complete non-issue here. Why are Silicon Valley hipsters deciding on the acceptable parameters of discourse in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome... etc?
Facebook is big, wealthy and mainstream. Parler was small, poor and fringe.

Same reason tech firms are happy to "stand up" for democracy in small developing nations but won't say boo to China.

If you're looking to big business for some consistent moral principle, you're looking in the wrong place.
I suspect living through the collapse of Libya as an innocent resident of that country, was probably one of the most frightening events in recent American history.
Some interesting U.S. accents:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6089621A87373FBE

The oddest is Tangier Island, VA:

https://youtu.be/AIZgw09CG9E

Relevant to this submission, a Cajun accent:

https://youtu.be/hV8TQTUSsgw

Relevant to HN, tech talk circa 1985:

https://youtu.be/C4ctm0tElsU
You say you want to have a small database just for each control process deployment to be independent. But you need multiple nodes for etcd... So you currently have either a shared database for all control processes, or 3 nodes per control process, or 3 processes per control node, etc. Either way it seems weird.

I get that SQLite wouldn't work, but it also doesn't make sense to have one completely independent database per process. So I imagine you're using a shared database, at which poitlnt etcd starts to make more sense. It's just not that widely understood in production as sql databases, and has limitations which you might reach in a few years.
I don't see where the article mentions officers from Colorado? Or that they were arrested? Only charges filed against officers from Virginia:

> charges of disorderly conduct and entering a restricted space were filed against Officer Jacob Fracker and Sgt. Thomas Robertson, two members of the Rocky Mount Police Department in Virginia
Asked for “my pronouns”, I give two offensive words. This is generally enough to short-circuit this stupidity.
Explain it to an engineer. A few people in a mostly peaceful protest got out of hand and this is the most frightening event ever? I'd say the congressmen shooting was 10x scarier yet received 100x less news coverage.

Just to be clear, sarcasm and unduly extreme language do not work as well on an engineer :)
well reddit political subs are managed through email blasts by some groups and this is not even bots doing it but people who feel empowered to take part.

I have always been of the opinion that the only people who should be restricted with regards to how they get their message out are those in office but Trump has changed the game a bit and now I realize there are far too many who have been waiting this moment to find new means to regulate who and what message can be conveyed.

prior to the net and social media sites we had to rely only on the press, printed and televised. both were shown their bias if not outright distortion of truth by the same social media many are being told to revile.

in the end it comes down to educating people and accepting that in any free society you get the good with the bad
Everything in the Data volume is encrypted. The System volume is signed by Apple and is the same on every Big Sur Mac (SSV feature).

This can be disabled through csrutil though.
> He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy...

Maybe he hasn't heard about Tiananmen Square[1], since in China it never happened[2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
And the N-E suburbs became the soil for a completely new 'banlieue' accent and lingo (blend of gypsy and northern-africa).
Bans happened only after the power shifted and continued based on the bandwagon effect.

The way i personally see it from afar, no side was innocent and definitely no one scored a win. But social networks messed up the most and will pay the most. Even European leaders expressed more concern with the powers and lack of control over social networks than with a bunch of whatever-you-call-them that took advantage of the laughably weak security force of Capitol (especially considering the event of the day).
Did I say I would stop working with them?

In the real world, Apple still gets to have their business and people work with them, but enough stink is raised to both externally and privately to get them to change their decision. Which they have evidently done here, so working as intended. Reputation damage is a thing if it involves conversations with other F100 companies.

This particular debacle is one of the reasons why $CurrentCorpo I am occasionally working with decided to skip Big Sur until much later in the lifecycle - not the only one, though.
Remote Work Interviews, Part I: Applying
Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
What makes Facebook worse, in my mind, is that people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment. At least on something like 4Chan you'd be anonymous, but nope, people will write the most grotesque comments, while everyone can see their real name, where they live and who they work for. Some people don't seem to care, and that's pretty scary.
There is absolutely no difficulty, if you don't want censorship, just have a button that hides content you personally don't want and leave that decision to all individual users. What others wish to see or not is not your decision to make, and if some of them are illegal that should be a job for the police not some ego-triping janny.
The entities running the simulation knew you would think like that, which is why they put Elon Musk there so the simulated you thinks "nah, if I were simulated my life would be awesome".
> What's the argument for banning one social media and not another

Google’s argument would be Facebook has shown good-faith efforts to respond to the problem, e.g. by freezing Trump. Parler didn’t or couldn’t. (Counterfactual: they weren’t given much time.)

In reality, a greater fraction of Parler’s users are engaging in criminal activity. By virtue of market share. (I reckon the number of problem users is higher at Facebook. Again by virtue of size.) And disconnecting hundreds of millions of voters from their kids’ photos is a good way to get slapped.

Great arguments for breaking up Facebook.
> From my experience eastern developers seem to need a lot of hand holding their don't seem to be many technical leads / CTO who can take broad instructions and produce a good piece of work

Hmm that's interesting and there may be something to it (I'm Polish). I've seen some very competent Polish tech leads, but no one higher than that really. It may be because the local value of a developer or tech lead salary is so high in Poland (esp. if you contract for rich Western/US companies) that people don't really have the motivation to move up the ladder - they're living like kings already and build wealth that will stay in their families for generations.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-overview/...

Most of these were developed woth actual business partners and are being used right now.
Some good points in the article, but I disagree with the tone and the conclusion.

> we’ve rewarded and lauded incremental researchers as innovators, increased their budgets so they can do even more incremental research

There isn't a scientific field where every single paper is groundbreaking. It's a Brownian motion of small incremental innovations, until eventually we stumble upon something big (like deep learning). In no way is machine learning unique in this. Sounds like the author is simply disappointed that, like in any other profession, day-to-day of a researcher is a slog and not a perennial intellectual festival. We've been in an exciting deep learning craze for a while, but it's silly to expect it to last forever. Back to the grind now.

> Machine Learning Researchers can now engage in risk-free, high-income, high-prestige work

Not sure what author means by "risk-free". Yes, if you're not publishing enough you're most likely not going to starve. Is that a bad thing? Is the survival instinct the only good motivator for doing good research?

I would argue that there's plenty of risk, in that people who don't publish good research don't get very far in their academic careers, which in my view is good enough motivation. "They must do good research or starve" is a rather cynical take, especially from someone who seems to not be doing too badly for themselves.

I'd rather more fields provided similar benefits. Maybe then going into science wouldn't be associated with so much sacrifice, so more smart people would choose science over investment banking or such, and we'd make more scientific progress faster.

> CNNs use convolutions which are a generalization of matrix multiplication.

A nitpick: CNNs are most definitely not a generalization of matrix multiplication. In fact, the opposite: you can view CNNs as a matrix multiplication with a particular matrix structure.
Hysterical commentary is contributing to the radicalisation on both sides.
Yes, I am quite sure. The typical FAANG developer is not earning $200k base and $200k RSUs per year. It's more like $130k - $180k and maybe $80k to $150k RSU. You have to be pretty senior to reach top 5% income at FAANG in the US--it isn't as common as HN would have you believe.

And as I've noted in another comment, top 10% doesn't put you in the same socioeconomic class as the actual wealthy (https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...).

There's a gap between FAANG and, say, a janitor's salary; that's just not debatable. The gap is much smaller than between Mr. FAANG and Mr. Top 5%, and for all intents and purposes Mr. FAANG is Mr. Janitor when compared to Mr. Top 1%. That some FAANG employees are in the top 1% doesn't negate this.
I should think that in healthcare, of all places, your birth sex matters more than what your gender identity is -- for your own safety, even.
In what direction does HN radicalize us?