skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The whole point of open-source is to curate a useful software commons. Suppose Elastic does lose control of their codebase, and it winds up getting maintained entirely by AWS. Then what's to stop AWS from taking their forked Apache2 code closed-source? Bam, no more ElasticSearch. Without professional maintainers, CVEs will pile up and it will gradually become abandonware.

Suppose Elastic had used GPL instead. Then Amazon's hands are tied to a greater extent, but we still lose out. If AWS is the one maintaining ElasticSearch, then ES will steadily become more and more nichely-suited to being a part of the Amazon cloud and less suited to a self-hosted use case. Users can patch it for their own use-cases, but they'll never be able to make it as good as it would have been if there were full-time maintainers supporting them. The commons still become less rich.

The dream is that Elastic can keep maintaining ES but ES remains Apache2. Given AWS's presence in the market, it seems like that's not an especially viable option. For Elastic to keep maintaining ES while switching ES to a more restrictive license which doesn't prevent normal use cases but hamstrings AWS is less desirable, but still preferable to Elastic folding, because ES remains a tool which we can all use and patch as needed to power our own services.
If you modified the software and then sold a hosted solution using the modified software you would need to release the source code for your modifications. Or if you built a plugin that was directly linked to the software you might have to release the source for that plugin. But if you had other software that made network calls to the software I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to open source that as well.
your not reading what I'm writing

left: |---|---| right

left: |-------|-------|right

edit: i cant get the lines to line up, the beggining of the first line is supposed to be like two dashes over

the right has gotten more extreme than the left has gotten extreme. if you think your in the middle, your really just right wing becasue the right has gotten insane. thats my point. your free to prove me wrong when ever by explaining your thoughts on policy though
If someone walks to my living room, inside my house, with a laptop and start flashing the ESP32 in there measuring and displaying my house temperatures from BLE sensors - I've got bigger issues than a hacked microcontroller.
> That's the thing which is illegal because it isn't speech. It isn't information, it's action. See above.

It's a distinction without a difference. I don't want to host violence provoking content. I don't think others should either. You think they should, and you have your reasons. Everyone (and every organization) can make up their own minds.

Clearly, we disagree about which approach is better for society, and happily we do so cordially, which is just the sort of conversation we need more of.

> No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today. Quoting https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-parler-violent-content-w...

"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints," Amazon's lawyers stated in a court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."

"Parler's refusal to moderate content resulted in a "steady increase" in violent content on the network, breaching Amazon's terms of service, AWS contended.""
Why it's vital that AI is able to explain the decisions it makes
some headers are meant to be included multiple times with different definitions (although templates are usually a better way to do this).
I think that's part of the problem. The stated goal is to understand our biases and flaws, and to become "less wrong." But it's easy to fall into a trap where one claims to get better at such biases, therefore making them more rational than people who haven't, therefore making their position superior - hence re-enforcing their biases.

A lot of the public declarations coming from "rationalist" communities remind me of public declarations of sin coming from certain religious groups. Though it presents itself as self-effacing, it ends up being affirming. You rarely see the thought extend to "therefore, outgroups that I've been deriding perhaps know better than my ingroup."

Particularly interesting when there are biases that have almost become dogma in certain "rationalist" circles, such as the preoccupation with godlike artificial superintelligence.
what point are you even trying to make here?
There is a bunch of funny problems regarding Hilbert Hotel, with countably infinite number of suits :) .
I'm definitely your target audience. For the past few months ive been super curious about crispr and just enrolled in OChem to try to really understand this stuff. I probably have all those misunderstandings. Any pointers?
strong disagree on printf... maybe there's some modern typesafe C++ way to do the same thing, but format specifiers are way easier to remember than all the ways of modifying iostream.
Thanks to Chris Carter the black ooze everyone almost forgot that X-files exposed is now recruiting. At least we know who patient zero is.
Jk's
Hi, I work in academia and disagree with the author’s take.

My admittedly anecdotal experience doesn’t support that. The worst perception I can think of would be a (likely older) PI wondering why you’re writing blog posts instead of papers. Blogs are generally seen favorably - they can be a friendly introduction to your work or act as a knowledge base/wiki for how-tos or popular tools.

I know many professors who blog frequently and/or encourage trainees to have a personal website; a PI I work with now has a blog and encourages his members, particularly the junior ones, to contribute for the exposure; and I have multiple grad school friends who blog regularly - so far without negative consequence.

Also, if you want to consider twitter “microblogging”, it only takes a few minutes of browsing scitwitter to debunk the idea that scientists don’t talk about their field online (even unprofessionally). It’s really the only thing they talk about.
You should go actually read what Popper said about the paradox of intolerance, instead of projecting your own interpretation onto it based upon your assumptions.

Edit: here, I'll do it for you:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

Put more succinctly: one ought to reserve the right to not tolerate the intolerant without limit, but we should always err to engage with them on the level of rational argument. Once they claim that rational argument is no longer the field on which they want to argue, and violence is, the right we reserve is to counter with our own intolerance of that, through violence if necessary, even though that is contrary to our principles of never being intolerant (hence the paradox.)

So no, it doesn't mean you shouldn't tolerate intolerance. On the contrary, it means you should tolerate it as much as humanly possible, but not limitlessly. It's basically the inverse of what you and others claim it says. The paradox is the fact that unlimited tolerance of the intolerant is paradoxical, not that any tolerance of the intolerant is. People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence, specifically, are actually sitting on the "intolerant" side of this argument, funny enough.
I assumed/misunderstood RP2040 also had -

> build in opamp, adc and full microprocessor under the hood doing signal conditioning, digitization, linearization, translation, and cold joint temperature compensation.

I stand corrected, thank you.
Not the Russians who built Moscow-on-Thames.
Sure, but clickbaity headlines are perfectly legal.
My first thought was that this a super spicy meme that will generate even more buzz. I would love to IANAL opinions on the legality of memes impacting markets though.
Apparent details of what happened.

TLDR: Apparently the recent GME play upset/hurt some institutional investors, and they decided to hit back.

https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/l2guoc/wall...
It appears 'Back' may also work in restoring the page.
WSB has been a fountain of wealth for me. They actually do move the market, everyone who has taken notice and jumped on the hype train has done extremely well for themselves. I hope it continues, then I can leave my job forever
Reddit is so bland lately. Feels like three quarters of the responders are AI bots. Wall Street bets is ridiculous but has a lot of camaraderie.
> It is entirely irrelevant what it is. The point is that if the system is immutable it is impossible to represent a combination of state transitions that alters an existing state,

Alters? Aha! But you cannot alter that which is immutable! Seems that you still don’t get the concept.

See how silly it is to language police people on such subjets?

> would in that case [only include those] where the time travel does not introduce a paradox that depends on change.

Highlighted the problematic part with brackets. This is just hand-waving. “Only those”? Your theory would have to be able to explain concrete examples like the grandfather problem, or else it doesn’t rise to the level of being a theory that can explain the paradox.

> The same way the timeline does not include any states where I fold an elephant, because it's not possible to do so.

Irrelevant unless there is an actual elephant folding paradox that I’m missing. Impossible things can be explained; paradoxes cannot since they reveal a contradiction in the model.

> You have not presented any paradoxes that can work with an immutable space-time other than perhaps if said space-time introduces divergent timelines at any point of mutation, in which case the paradox can also easily be resolved.

This is the first time (?) you’ve mentioned divergent timelines or hinted at non-just-straight-line-time. And yes, that would probably be perfectly adequate, and is the best answer you’ve given thus far.

> You can experience it that way, but your "do something" step 2 would be deterministic and could not possibly include steps that introduced a paradox.

“Determinism” is either irrelevant or non-sufficient. “Could not possibly” is pure hand-waving as there is nothing which makes sure that you are able to do something benign (like greet your former self) but not do something like kill yourself.

> You're still thinking in terms of a mutable space-time. I did not talk about time being immutable,

Wow, I have to hand it to you. I did mention “space-time” once (although only once) and I utterly failed to be rigorous and spell out the whole package deal, namely space-time. What an utter embarrassment.

Not that it changes my point in any way.

> My original comment gave immutability as an example of a possible solution. Time travel with paradoxes is not possible.

You can’t resolve the Barber Paradox by simply saying that the Universe wouldn’t allow the barber to shave himself. That’s effectively what you’re doing here, only using vaguely hard science terms with a seasoning of “you still don’t get it”.
That's all true, but it's also all stuff you could say without having read the ruling, or acknowledging anything the judge said about Parler's complaint.

It's a short document! It's well written! I recommend it.

Further: some of what you said upthread is contradicted by facts now acknowledged by the court. There may be some barely-colorable argument about antitrust or contracts of adhesion or something, but there is not in fact a colorable argument that Amazon was required to give notice to Parler before terminating them for violation of their AUP; that's in the plain language of the contract, which is on the record in the case, but is also the easily-downloaded AUP a Google search will provide you. Your arguments would be more credible if they acknowledged those facts, rather than implying that they were somehow still up in the air.
Assange is charged with helping Manning with decrypting stolen files and offering advice on how to best cover her tracks among other things according to the DOJ indictment. Why are you so convinced of his innocence? Do you have information that definitively refutes all of those charges?

Edit: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl...
The left.
From the tweet, looks like 540 servers max at this point. And sure, not trivial but you shouldn't be planning to run a large chat system without the technical staff to pull something like that off, whether on AWS or not.
Having a bunch of psychiatrists and psychologists as friends (met one, then made friends with their friends) this is a very universal thing among therapists.

To the point it's almost regulation via their ethics codes, that they take a test on made by the 'board' of psychology. It's definitely an industry norm. I found out 'the board' is mostly equivalent to Psychologist DMV and is run by the state, and is about as pleasant to interact with.
Don't diesel-electric locomotives use transformers for gear shifting? I assume if it's even needed for electric cars, they'd use something like that.
> Failure on SSDs is predictable and usually expressed with Terabytes Written (TBW). Failure on spinning disk HDDs is comparatively random.

That wasn't my experience with thousands of SSDs and spinning drives. Spinning drives failed more often, but usually with SMART sector counts increasing before hand. Our SSDs never got close to media wearout, but that didn't stop them from dropping off the bus. Literally working fine, then boom can't detect; all data gone.

Then there's the incidents where the power on hours value rolls over and kills the firmware. I believe these have happened on disks of all types, but here's a recent one on SSDs [1]. Normally when building a big server, all the disks are installed and powered on at the same time, which risks catastrophic failure in case of a firmware bug like this. If you can, try to get drives from different batches, and stagger the power on times.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/hpe-says-firmware-bug-will-bri...
https://www.csbj.com/premier/businessnews/lawsuit-arises-fro...

>“In sum, the financial participation of the City in the Mall’s progress, the arrangements with the City police substation, and the active presence of other governmental agencies in the common areas of the Mall, constitute governmental involvement in the operation of the Mall,” the court noted. Thus, it concluded the mall’s “open and public areas ... effectively function as a public place,” and that mall owners couldn’t restrict distribution of political pamphlets or signature gathering in the mall’s common areas without violating the state Constitution.

Also, General Dynamics absolutely operates under many contractual obligations in which the federal government directly dictates how they shall run their business.
> i was told most traders never excersie their options

What you were actually told was probably that most options expire worthless.
> Facebook and Twitter spend a cubic fuckton of money on moderation, at a scale significant enough that there are, annually, news cycles about the psychic toll Facebook moderation takes on the army of people Facebook pays to do it.

Which appears to be less effective -- paid moderators aren't members of individual communities -- with the result that most of the planning of the riot happened on Facebook.

> Parler hoped to do moderation on a volunteer basis.

So does Reddit, doesn't it? Moderator of a sub is the creator, a user? And it seems to be less bad than Twitter and Facebook.

The reason people compare to Facebook and Twitter instead of Reddit is because they're worse.

> You can run a service like Parler on all-volunteer (or, like Gab, no-volunteer) moderation. You just can't do it on Amazon's infrastructure.

What happens if you can't do it on anybody's infrastructure who has the capacity to host a site that size?

But you're changing the subject.
Hey that’s cool! I do the same thing! I use the Docker image as a way to use my development environment in a pinch and additionally as verification that my giant one-click setup script works on a fresh machine.

https://github.com/jswny/dotfiles
I can't say I'm happy seeing this post on the front page of HN right now. I left reddit behind because of the immaturity and now it's come to roost. I don't exactly know where to go from here but I see eternal September is alive and well.
We need better face masks – and origami might help
I don't see any "journalistic value" in linking Scott Siskind to Scott Alexander. I don't remember anyone at the NYT or elsewhere arguing there was any value. (Plenty of publications posted about the incident without dropping his irl name). Do you think there was journalistic value in linking the two in this instance?
is tesla's price going to drop now?
This sounds like it is highlighting an issue with IPv4 that has always been there.

I think this is going to lead to a faster restructuring of internet routing, I was going to say “antifragility” but am I correct in that this term has also been co-opted by specifically far-right extremist groups who also think these attacks make them naturally select into more resilient forces
Twitch RTMP ingest is not spec compliant?
Guys, can you be a little bit less obvious in promoting your loon conspiracy site?
Cool, but the Tesla story already made it feel like a spiritual successor to the DeLorean.
"Identity" is a loaded term. On the Internet, what he's notable for and what NYTimes was reporting on, his identity is Scott Alexander. Talk about Scott Alexander I'll know who you mean. If you had dropped a reference to "Scott Siskind" any time before today, I wouldn't have.

Taken to the extreme, "identity" in your comment might as well apply to his driver's license number. The NYT could print that, causing him additional hassle for just as much of an addition to the story.
Yes, but that's besides the point.

40M Aussies will 'discover' very materially how to use all those other search engines.

Also - I think this is an interesting experiment in news and power.

Google should be very, very afraid that governments are taking major steps because other governments will follow suit.

If it's a massive payday for Aussie news outlets, you can be 100% assured that every other nation will follow suit.

Honestly it may help solve the 'news' problem.

Maybe not, but it's worth a try.
Yeah I appreciate this. And since I'm a researcher rather than an engineer I'm also not forced to get on the threadmill. But like I said, I do see some value in using Docker as a tool to let a bunch of researchers run wild as semi-trusted superusers (by "semi-trusted" I mean we can be trusted not to purposefully do evil, but not trusted not to accidentlaly step on each others' fet). So I'd still like to learn a bit :-)
You would probably spend a lot more time and money and arrive at the same conclusion. You can have the best background in statistics and all the experience in the world, but it doesn’t matter if you don’t have the right data. This post just kind of confirms what many people have already shown about SMART data: it’s not predictive of drive failure.
If it really isn't much to ask for, then it should be no problem for you to provide it no?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/google-facebook-make-...
Fully agree with this. Free is free, you could always argue that there is "a spirit to open source"; but as with everything there's always going to be people exploiting and using it, that comes with the free.

To me it boils down to if you think that it's worth it: whenever I put MIT or Apache 2.0 on my public Github projects, I don't mind anyone going out making millions on them. Other side of the coin; if I make millions on some obscure library I found on Github with an MIT license, I do not expect them to be outraged about it.

If you do not think it's worth it, as you said there are a range of other licenses out there. I love the notion of human knowledge being free and available to all to the fullest extent, I think it will drive (and has driven) immense value for humankind.
The key word in the sentence "I don't see any journalistic value in linking Scott Siskind to Scott Alexander" is "I". But it's also an easy argument to knock down: he wrote other stuff under his real name. It's valuable to know there's a link between those writings and the writings he chooses to surface today.
Among Us Cheat Radar 9 9 – Expectare Info amongus amongushack
warning needed on that
Do we need to change Face ID like we do for text passwords?
Had another birthday and am wondering.
I don't think it is wise because whoever is in power will change fringe groups who need to be censored. Today it's the far right, during wwii it was anyone from Japan tomorrow it could be blm or women with tails. The one thing we know is it will change.

What's important is to being as open as possible and having open structures.

All of these are education problems not free speech problems. Speech is a signal not something to be repressed
It's not "a laboratory of the German armed forces".
And it's not "clear political conflict" - it's Russia lying about destroying their chemical weapons and instead using them in Europe and UK - see Navalny and Skripal.
Apple should remove Chrome and Safari as there are some crazy websites out there in the wild.
Downvote away, but I really don't understand why psuedo-intellectuals who write pretentious posts full of meaningless nonsense are so popular on HackerNews.

This guy runs a psychiatry called "Lorien", lives in a group-housing-community called "Valinor", and spams "rationalist" neckbeard blog posts on the internet.

Does that seem like a well-adjusted individual you would entrust your treatment resistant depression, let alone mental health in general to?

I don't know about you, but to me it seems like a comical case of the psychiatrist being the one who's in need of help.

+ psychiatry and mental health aside, are his opinions on all the countless fields and topics he writes about (in implied expert capacity) worth listening to? Keep in mind, each of those fields and topics have plenty of actual experts to go around. (eg in Economics, take a pick from the dozens of top economists in the IGM Expert panel https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel)
Thanks everyone for the answers!
They wouldn't be subject to the same rules. The proposed law only applies to companies which the government designates as having "a significant bargaining imbalance between Australian news providers and the group". (I believe this is the current text: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...)
I'm not fat, day 55 of eating like a weirdo