skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your numbers are not reliable, and you should discount whatever source you got them from. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-p...

The large Black Lives Matter protests all over the country were overwhelmingly lawful and peaceful. The main exceptions were the scenes in many places of cops beating the shit out of people, etc. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/police-protests-vid...

In various cities a small number of people acted violently. These were opportunists without apparent link to the Black Lives Matter organizers who took advantage of the situation to smash things up. Some were likely sympathetic to the BLM message, but others have been identified as far-right agitators. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-cause... https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-an...
There are several interface boxes, such as Cell2Jack. Mine is packed up right now, so I don't have the brand info.

Coin telephones have a slightly different interface. But if it's been "reconditioned", the coin control system was probably disabled and it just acts like a ordinary analog phone.
Even in multiple exchanges orders are always private before they execute if you are trading on an exchange (if you are trading through another venue this may not be true but in those cases latency is not an issue as there is no race).

If you send an order to buy at $10 and the lowest sell price is $9.99 you will not rest an order you will be filled at $9.99 before any other exchange participant can see your order.

Orders rest when you offer to buy at $9.98 but the lowest sell price is $9.99. At that point if you are the first person at that price level you will be first in line when someone tries to sell at $9.98. Otherwise you will be last in line even if the person in front of you put their order in by mail a month ago.

Respectfully that you need these concepts explained to you means you don’t know even the basics of how this works so holding a vehement position on it is a bad look.

It’s akin to someone hearing that udp is a lossy protocol and railing about it existing at all.
Yes, their search leaves a lot of room for improvement. I am only suggesting it for the folks that are already using it.
I have quite a restrictive firewall. Like an old school one: accept the necessary, drop the rest.
Found my Mac unusable in these conditions. It always tries to phone home unsuccessfully, so freezes. Then freezes again.
It has the offline mode but it has no firewalled mode unfortunately. Once the cable is inserted it keeps trying.
The problem with "trying it with my team for one sprint" is that I now need to have a long conversation with legal. How will the service provider handle the content (discussions, screenshots, code snippets) that my team will upload? Do our current customer contracts contain any clauses that complicate the use of external discussion sites? In the unlikely event that the service offers the option to host it locally -- who is going to deploy it, configure it, set up security and authn/authz around it?

The real answer is: just fucking use email. Why is email not one of the options suggested in the TFA? It's universally available, durable, allows long-form conversation and thoughtful deliberation, doesn't tell you that "someone is typing," and offers you the luxury of checking it at a set interval only a few times per day.

The way many organizations have collectively abandoned email in favor of instant messaging is a travesty.
Naomi Wu has been talking about this for a while [0]. She lives in China, and has flagged this multiple times on Twitter, apparently without much response from the Signal team to her frustration. The issue seems to be that Signal simply sets the incognito flag when users are typing in the app, which kindly requests keyboard apps to not track the input. Unfortunately, since most American made keyboards for chinese writing are slow and difficult to use, most Chinese citizens use keyboards made by companies made in China, which does not provide much reassurance w.r.t adherence to the incognito request. Your concern seems to be spot on, and it'd be worth Signal at least making this clear to users when they first begin using the app.

While the answer from most technical users will be "just switch keyboards", it's also widely accepted that defaults matter and unless Signal makes an active effort to discourage people's default choice, the larger purpose of privacy will be somewhat defeated.

[0] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/119769534457579929...
I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things.
Role Play, Drills, Training – John Lewis on the Discipline of Non-Violence
Yes, this is a liability issue for Amazon / AWS. Which has more liability -- keeping them or shutting them off for TOS violation? The answer is easy.
There's no such thing as "completely tangential". Something is either tangential, or it's not.

Perhaps you should read a dictionary before your next attempt at "forum police".
What about individuals living under a dictatorship or within a regime that censors political speech? I could see there being billions of people in the world that would benefit from an internet that resists censorship.
I think they're talking about the simplicity of C.

But yeah, I like to think of Go as a Java for the new millennium.

We're a Java shop and lots of people hate some of the newer changes to the language. And how OOP focused it is. I think Go would be a better fit because it seems to match the philosophy of our team more. But don't really think it's worth the switch for us.
because you really think I'm rich ?

(this is meta comment, don't be offended)
I think the main thing is if you want to make a case for there being anti-trust or user freedom or dubious moderation priorities issues with app stores, a campaign centred around examples other than Parler is much more likely to win widespread support.
> Planning also occurred on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

Sure.

And that may indicate problems with those platforms. At a minimum, though, those platforms reacted against continued use by the same terrorists once it was unmistakably, publicly, concretely clear that they were a deadly serious threat.
Interesting examples - both Newspapers and TV Stations, for their public "platform" nature, don't enjoy certain libel protections that Social Media does.

FB's "platform" feature is largely listener-driven. You can still use FB and not listen to persons X, Y and Z. It's all posted by users, and users decide what to follow or read (except paid content). Not like TV Stations and Newspapers. That's what Social Media companies have been telling us for a while!

But if we want apply usual standards of platform rights and responsibilities to FB, we should then require it to also be responsible for what's posted there.

You can't have it both ways.
> This appears to be just another commercialisation of domain names, trying to create another "Gold Rush" for the most sought after names. Winner-take-all. A few profit at the expense of the many.

This is a major problem that the project has made a sincere attempt to address. Through scarcity certain sybil protections are afforded, which has been inherently architected into the consensus protocol [1]. Additionally, an airdrop to many internet pioneers and open source developers was built in as well, giving everyone similar resources to participate in the auction system which, in turn, affords everyone more equality in participation. Finally, the top 100k names as per alexa were pre-reserved for the holders in the alexa list, and these sites are incentivized to properly setup DNSSEC, as that's the only way they can claim their name on handshake.

This is a win for internet security and internet users. It's absolutely a big win for freedom of speech.

[1] https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt
I'm not sure it does. The post-truth left is post-truth not because of lack of faith in epstemological institutions, but because of a different epistemology. You can't fix that by a more honest press.

The right... if you had a more honest (or less biased) press, it might fix the post-truth right... eventually. Like, a decade or three later. You have to be trustworthy for a while before people will trust you.

And yet, I wonder if that paragraph is true. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I think I can tell when someone's presenting an ideologically varnished version of reality vs. when they're telling it straight. If reporters stopped being cheerleaders and started reporting, maybe people would figure it out faster than I expect.
The problem is that even if you install one of those privacy-protecting keyboard apps, chances are that the person you are talking to on the other end is using the stock Google keyboard that sends what they type to Google. Even if only half of the conversation leaks that way, that is still a major blow to the privacy of both parties.
why would big companies setting up shops there in Canada would increase draining away talent
I disagree, (b) may or may not be seen as oppositional, depending entirely on what the issue is.

Misleading statements can be followed with questions seeking clarification. Irrelevant statements can be followed with questions asking relevance.

Demonstrably false statements will require the host to demonstrate the falsehood, otherwise they are not so. At least, questions can be asked clarifying the details of the statement.

> this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all

so be it. If politicians don't want to look bad, they won't. But they can also lose face if they only accept softballs.

asking pertinent is not aggressive, nor does it disgust audiences. The problem, as I see it, are that journalists are mistaken wrt to what the facts are or at least what can be demonstrated), and when questions really are pertinent. A host can be as confrontational as they want, so long as they are bi-partisan (i.e fair); It's only when they are not that their manner becomes an issue to an audience.

I often see aggressive questions asked, then don't really serve a useful purpose other than give someone a hard time, e.g loaded questions.
Attack scenario would be a website loading CSS that is controllable by someone malicious. This could be due to ad code or custom themes for part of the site.
That CSS would include selectors that would trigger different remote image requests for different partial matches on the value of the input. Based upon what remote URLs were triggered, one could reconstruct all or part of a password.

But I get your point. The website should not know the plaintext of your password for an overlap check unless their security practices are really bad. And if they are that bad, hopefully it is a throwaway password anyway. A duplicate check could still be done with hashes, but partial hash leaks are NBD.

Personally, I've had this happen though on password change prompts, which makes me think that the website is storing the value I just entered temporarily in the session. That's still bad even if it isn't being persisted beyond that page post though.
Please give MikroORM a shot, vastly better than the mentioned.

https://github.com/mikro-orm/mikro-orm
"If the proposal is accepted, our goal will be to have a complete, though perhaps not fully optimized, implementation for people to try by the end of the year, perhaps as part of the Go 1.18 betas."
What's wrong with being a coward? Everyone has a different baked-in aversion to risk. Part of personality trait Neuroticism, I think.

"You know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed." ~ Zoe from Firefly
From the piece:
> It is true that one can find postings on Parler that explicitly advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque.

It is the same to me as saying “it is true one can find sexually explicit images of children on a dark net pedo site”. Parler was made to harbour the kind of content which is getting purged by any platform caring about not appearing as a Daily Stormer outpost.
It's Orwellian. If you want to identify the despots, look at the language they use - it's convoluted, contrived and emotionless. Prefixed and negated, loaded with ideological meaning, instead of just saying simple words everyone already knows.

This goading on of race consciousness is toxic and racist. It's a way to descend into reducing everyone to their skin color under the banner of social progress.
The original article did have a few screenshots, if I remember correctly. The original host of the article, however, is long gone.
More specifically, for the things they do towards the destruction of our democratic society.
Russia's censorship laws are formulated around 'preventing religious and ethnic hatred' (among other things).
I think this concept of freedom of speech is in opposition to freedom of association.
New concepts, yes, but I think anyone who has spent any significant time programming in C++ will immediately recognize the problems that they are solving and how the solution works. That significantly eases the learning curve in my opinion.
I find myself in the exact same position.

It's one thing if I say the election was stolen. I should not be censored for saying that it was. My voice alone will not sway anything. The problem is that so much power is concentrated with the president that it ONLY takes his voice to throw an entire country into chaos. That's too much power with one person.

So what am I saying? That I should have freedoms the president should not?
Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits on free speech when that is irrelevant? Free speech is something provided by the government, not by private companies. Any private company, such as a restaurant, can throw you out for any reason outside of discriminating against a protected class.

What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech for choosing not to work with certain people is forgetting that that same principle can be applied to them. Do you want to be forced to work with companies you abhor?
I think this is quite true. Even with federated/distributed architecture like web and email, many of the emails are on Google Apps (or whatever they call it these days), Office 365, or a few other services. Many web sites are on WordPress.com, GitHub pages, or platforms like AWS or GCP.
Everything that AWS offers comes with lots of caveats. I'm happy that good competition from Azure is forcing AWS to simplify some of of their services and make things a bit more straightforward.
Many organizations seem to use Outlook/Exchange and configure Exchange to make it difficult to use other mail clients (not enabling imap, not enabling caldav support so that a separate calendar and email client need to be used unless you use exchange, etc). Outlook is truly awful as a mail client and it would make one want to use anything else.
> We're asserting that they cannot relate to those born into a lower or middle class family.

That's a big leap to make. I'm sure we have much different narratives we find to be true, but Trump is basically filling stadiums wherever he goes. Maybe he relates to the lower and middle classes better than you are giving him credit for.

> You're intentionally ignoring the fact that the man who told you there was a swamp

To be fair, you have no idea how I came to believe there is a swamp. I thought that long before Trump became president for a variety of reasons.

I'm not going to get into the details of what I believe. There's just too much to cover. I'm not claiming that I could persuade you that I am right. We are on the sidelines in all this. We are in the middle of an information war, and probably have been our entire lives.
FTA

> of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler
Well, Slack search experience could be done better. I prefer to see search results and selected thread with search keyword in the same view. It is annoying to keep going to every thread in the results and going to search bar again if that is not I was looking for.
Aren't you being a bit pedantic? The statement was an opinion, not a legal argument
How is it insensitive to point out that people have strokes, heart attacks, etc. each and every day, whether they are involved in riots or not?

I am not in favor of anything that happened, but in order to have any perspective on any of this, accurate information is important.
The big question is if they will federate with the rest of the Matrix ecosystem or keep it closed.

It's positive for matrix either way, but federation would be great.
My concern is not that AWS should be forced to host content they don't want. It's that AWS (and Apple, Facebook, and others) have misrepresented what they do.

It's no shock that DailyKos shouldn't have to host pro-Trump content. Nor should /theDonald have to host pro-Bernie content. We all agree that people can choose who to associate with, and that free association is important.

But AWS (and Facebook and others) didn't say "we're sites that present only one kind of content" the way /theDonald and DailyKos did. They presented themselves as universal tools for people to express themselves, build their own sites, install apps, etc.

So it comes as a shock when AWS says "we actually only want to support sites that present views that Jeff Bezos thinks are reasonable." And when Apple says "you can only download apps on your phone that we think do a good enough job moderating." And when Facebook bans people for posting wrong opinions.

The government can't and probably shouldn't force AWS to host content that Bezos doesn't agree with. It would be Amazon's right to host only content that is pro-Trump, or equally Amazon's right to only host content that is anti-Trump. But when Amazon presents something as a neutral utility but secretly enforces different rules, we can and should criticize them.

That's true even if all the content being removed today is garbage. I haven't seen any "worthwhile" content that's been affected by the recent moves, and I have never heard of any valuable speech on Parler. But I am still concerned that Apple gets to decide what apps I can install on my phone because they don't like the content. For every Apple (managed in California by socially liberal periople) there's a Walmart (managed in Arkansas by social conservatives) that will take the same powers and use them in a different way. Walmart is legally free to remove pro-BLM books from their online bookshelves, but we can and should criticize them if they do.
You can still say what you want. It’s just harder to say DIVISIVE HATEFUL RACIST INCITING VIOLENCE against blank. (Caps because I don’t have italics on phone, not yelling). I control what’s on my private network. Issue is people “want” to use these networks to spread their “#%$&£x” to the largest audience. These bad faith arguments, because you can’t come to “my house” and cause your trouble. No you don’t have that right. Do it at “your house”. Can someone explain how Twitter/Amazon/Apple/Google owe me?
Ideally, if the language/standard library provides maps but not sets, and you wanted to use the idiomatic set = map of type -> bool approach, you'd create a wrapper so that intent is preserved but users don't have to know about the backing mechanism. Of course, it's obnoxious if everyone has to do this themselves and the language lacks generics so you have to write this once for each potential type.
I totally agree. It's probably easier to make a company pay by offering support, training, etc.
It's the donation schema that is complicated for them.
> I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things.

I'm skeptical that such a line can ever be truly "settled." Sure, it can be settled in a particular social and technological context, but when those latter things change, the line may need to be adjusted.
Great find, thanks!

The usage I’m seeing does not fit the below defined criteria:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
I am generally not a fan of the MIC, and I am not particularly impressed by the promise of this initiative, but I don't have any issue with an open, or a pseudo-open, or even open-with-favoritism approach to R&D.

It's hard to compete with free, but that doesn't mean the world should be stuck paying rents to proprietary vendors from now to the end of time. Sometimes your business model gets disrupted by a VC dumping a billion dollars into a money-losing startup. Sometimes it gets disrupted by a nation state dumping a billion dollars into money-losing R&D, that they then gift to their domestic firms. It's fine when Europe does it, it's fine when China does it, it's fine when the US does it.

The reason it's fine is because there's nothing about capitalism or markets that require your competitors to be profitable... Just like there's nothing about capitalism or markets which forbids arbitrary, regional advantages, be they related to your geography, your access to human capital, a unique regulatory environment, or your access to a friendly government that will subsidize your business (With grants, or R&D credits, or tech transfers, or just by buying a lot of stuff from you.)

To put another way - if some other government funded the development of a drug that cured cancer for $2/dose, I wouldn't shed any tears for the trillions of dollars of wasted R&D, and lost profits for existing vendors of cancer medication. I'd still feel that way, even if they went ahead and gifted the IP to a domestic vendor, that sold it at a hefty markup.
Those emails are only available to the users participating in them, and in some places are automatically deleted after a certain amount of time. The point of TFA is knowledge capture, and email isn't transparent enough for sharing knowledge.
> If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et al given their proven history of allowing violence and hate speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs.

Sounds good to me... They're totally culpable for the domestic terrorism that happened at the capitol. Facebook too. Dogshit companies that track our behavior and make money off of outrage.
How to view DANE/TLSA websites on Handshake
So the worry is that it will be triggered accidentally and hear something you didn't intend it to, then that tiny, rarely occurring piece of data will be used against you?
Big fan of org-mode, although I recently stopped using it in favor of Joplin. I may switch back sometime if I can find a way to mimic Joplin's UI in org-mode (probably with an emacs tree plugin).

I love comments like these. The moment I see the words "plain text" in any HN post I always go to the comments and ctrl+f emacs.
Italians have a similar superstition about being hit by gusts of wind, 'colpo d'aria'. Often sickness are attributed to it, but not death like this article.
The hackers of the 90s would be laughing at the Bezo’s/Zuckerberg bootlickers on this site. Big tech and the feds used to be the evil empire, now over half this site want them to censor words that make them mad, and tuck them in at night for good measure. Bezos is reading this stuff and laughing his ass off, probably with a gaggle of prostitutes on a yacht in the Caribean somewhere.
> Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits on free speech when that is irrelevant?

It's not irrelevant.

> What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with.

To the extent that that is based on expressive preference, that is an aspect of free speech, and the closely-related right of free association.

Limiting that right is limiting free speech.