skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The entire point of this subthread you're responding to is that the cost of transactions is so energy intensive that those "other benefits" are null and void.

It's called an externality. It doesn't matter if you'd pay $10 for it if the cost imposed is too great. There are a lot of things people would absolutely pay for that we don't allow, because of that. Dumb weird fantasies about decentralization or counterparty risk or whatever don't actually matter if the energy cost is that high. It's just not important enough. Sorry.
>What is fundamentally different with Pepe is moderation. Instead of relying on a centralized entity with a banhammer, each board and thread owner may anonymously moderate their spaces on their own. However, nothing can actually be deleted, it can only be shadowed, and each user decides whether they want to see the light or the full version of the page at any moment in time. People can still reply to shadowed posts inside their own shadowed posts, so no one cannot silence anyone, only maintain order on the light side.
Number one with 27 points in 20 minutes for yet another chan board (named...pepe ) with a risible rationale?

News for hackers, indeed.
I'm surprised no one has made a truly decentralized site using webtorrent or ipfs, such that the more people use it, the harder it is to take down.

I suppose databases would be hard to implement with both, but you could just save everything as updating flat files and the database could be a progressive enhancement.

seems like an interesting technical problem to solve. if you're willing to trade off speed for resilience it seems possible with today's technology with very little modification.
It’s basic social proof. Social proof doesn’t tell you everything, but it tells you something. The fact that anyone uses a library is a signal in itself that puts it ahead of a zero star library.

People who have a problem with that are usually, in my experience, the ones placing too much importance on stars, and then projecting that onto everyone else who actually have more apathetic, reasonable views.
The political intervention was done using the mechanism described in the rules (according to my reading of your link).

They relied on conditions staying static when the rules say things can change a lot in an emergency.
When I lived in New Zealand, I once had an American caller ask me for the number of our other office, which happened to start with 555 (which has no special significance in NZ). It took me some time to convince her that I wasn't trying to fob her off with a fake number, because obviously everybody knows 555 numbers aren't real.
What if you exclusively kick all blacks out of your mall? Under your rules, that should be indiscriminately allowed.
We use it for business regularly and repeat transfers become faster over time. We had freelancers (EUR->GBP) receive their money in 2 days, after a while it was down to hours and we even saw 1 hour transfers. The limit became the receiving back making the funds available to the bank account owner.
Yup, I do accept the law of the excluded middle. Unreservedly. From a logical point of view, I cannot really imagine what it would mean NOT to be true.

Yes, Kripke semantics makes sense of constructive logic. Topos theory, too. But I really think of all of these embedded in classical logic, and assuming that the law of excluded middle doesn't hold for general reasoning just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.
Everything can always be better, but this is the best it's ever been for content creators.
This is cool and all but I really think you should have at least something for us to dick around with before you announce something big like this.
Still, I'll be keeping tabs on development. This seems like it could be /fun/.
Karl Popper explored this idea extensively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> I have trouble putting my finger on exactly why this feels wrong, but to me, the idea of buying a car - buying anything that has hardware in it that I have to pay extra to activate, it just seems wrong. I suppose it's the sense of wastefulness, or perhaps the idea that the extra widget could break and take down other things along with it.

Wastefulness may be distasteful, and you are welcome to boycott companies you feel are wasteful, but I don't think wastefulness should be a crime. If it's cheaper for Tesla to store unusable battery cell tech in your car than to throw it in a landfill, do we really want to make the landfill the cheaper option?
> You see, freedom of speech and expression must be absolute.

No, that is not true. It was never true. Nothing is absolute.
But maybe you are OK if I publicly put a bounty on your life.

The Pepe stuff just reeks like this is going to become yet another toxic cesspool of undesirable content if not outright illegal smut.

We don’t need another platform where people can be openly racist. Where people can say hideous things and call for hatred and violence.
First time hearing Pepe as a symbol of resistance. Saw it first as "Feels good man" before it turned into edgy alt-right symbol.
Was the monthly premium covering more than you? Paying $950/month is you paying almost 100% of the premium and your employer paying nothing.

I had the opposite experience. I found US health insurance reasonable and it covered more than in my original country (which didn’t cover the latest cancer treatments and had long waiting lines). If I got seriously ill and had good insurance I’d return to the US for care than stay where I am today in a developed country.
Sure, draw it along established legal lines, but stay away from silencing things that you simply disagree with.
SQLite is so ubiquitous you'd be hard pressed to find an app or service that doesn't use it.

Look through the licenses for the software included as part of your phone's OS. You'll find SQLite in there.

Search GitHub for sqlite, there are several projects with thousands of stars that use SQLite. Here's one: https://github.com/Tencent/wcdb
To make an analogy to the non-digital world I think it's apt: I don't think it should be tolerated in the public forum (e.g. overt racism espoused or advertised in cities or on national television). We also have laws against discrimination applying to private businesses, which I think is a decent balance.

I don't think it's desirable to prohibit individuals from gathering in private and exchanging intolerant thought, though. Something like this falls under that IMO.
That looks amazing. I wish there was something like this for macOS.
I would not call it ignorant. It is extreme, yes, but not ignorant. Unfortunately, you cannot have censorship-resistance with exceptions. Even if you have the greatest moderation team, it will all break apart sooner or later.
Maybe in the sense that an ant colony seems to behave like a single entity extending appendages to find food, do battle, propagate itself, etc
I think this will be even more amusing if the net effect is zero actual visits from real bus stop scans. Shades of picturesofpeoplescanningqrcodes.tumblr.com.
I'm in Texas, and lost power for > 72hrs.

I'm not on a wholesale rate plan, but if I was, you can bet your sweet ass that I would be A. monitoring the wholesale price B. switching off my main breaker the moment the price went above $X.

As such, don't really agree with the conclusion of the article. We mandate having car insurance not because we care if you can't afford to fix your car when you wreck it, but rather because if you crash into someone else we don't want you to dodge paying for what you've done to them.

Electricity is entirely a you thing. Your neighbor/society doesn't get hurt if you use Griddy with uncapped rates, only you do (and as pointed out above, you can avoid this if you're smart). Yes people will get burned, but I don't want to live in a society that tries to prevent people from ever making personal mistakes – mostly because such attempts usually don't succeed, while also curtailing my freedom in the process. And just to reiterate, this doesn't apply if there are negative externalities that affect others.
One in the US is that you cannot use a borderless account for ACH transactions initiated by the counterparty (despite it presenting the details that make it look like you can).
> If you want to make your program popular then packaging is part of the process needed.

That is demonstrably not true. I'm not making a value judgment (maybe it SHOULD be true, I dunno), but it's not true. There's a lot of popular unpackaged software out there.
So I can't call something hate speech on your free speech platform?
This feels like an incredibly ill-advised rebrand. Everyone I know of who uses TransferWise uses it rarely, like once per year. They won't be slowly eased into the new name. They'll try using the service again for the first time in a while, and everything will have changed to look like a phishing scam. And this is a service where that trust is critical, since the interaction model of the service is so odd. I'm transferring a 5 figure amount of money to a middleman, and hoping to get 99% of it back in a few days. That requires a bit of a leap of faith.

The only way this makes sense is if they're intending to sunset the transfers in a couple of years, and are all in on their "we're not calling it a bank account, so who knows if we're actually regulated like a bank" product.
Well, in the field of business we have limited liability, which limits the individual liability of the owners and also puts a damper on whatever risk a possible creditor might take with a debtor. But Griddy manages to drop unlimited liability onto individuals, and this isn't how it's supposed to work.
That depends on your priorities. Australia got it right if your top priority is safety. It came at a cost. Residents were not permitted to move freely or assemble freely. This is not an option in the US. So I’ll ask a follow up: who did it right in a country/state that respects individual freedom above safety?
Actually there isn't much to understanding the tactics unless you want to use them similarly, just like you wouldn't bother looking into what "auto" has done. For understanding math it is a lot more important to understand the lemmas and why they are structured certain way, akin to understanding the API of programs. We can think of theorems as math's public API and lemmas the internal API for devs. In machine checked proofs lemmas often take on distinct flavors because how a human normally proves things may be hard to mechanize. Intead of tools for understanding tactics (granted, these could be useful for tacticians :) we really need tools to help us visualize structure of proofs. If I know how to write a lemma, tactical proof is rarely a blocking issue. Once it is checked the tactics become irrelevant. They were just there to convince the proof checker.
A handheld gaming console that CAN run Crysis
You're right and I apologize, I did not mean to imply that just because your experience was different than mine meant it was invalid or not true.

My intent was to point out that the parent's perspective is not necessarily a common one inside of academia, and even though that unfortunately isn't the experience you had, it's regardless one that would mostly come about after grad school anyway.
Sorry, but even if we significantly improve things such that a transaction "only" takes the equivalent of a few days of my electricity use.. that's not so great. There's better ways to do this that don't require mining.

Indeed, from a decentralization perspective, mining is looking worse than proof of stake, etc.
Am I the only one who thinks that this essay appears to be mocking materialism by making a far fetched argument?
These exact same things were said about the printing-press when it was the epitome of new, high-technology.
This is on some deep level what society is for and how humans survived in a hostile wilderness for so many generations: by pooling resources to reduce risk. If I’m alone in the forest, and I break my foot, I can no longer hunt, and I may die. But if I’m a member of a tribe, the others will bring me food until I can walk again. It’s the foundation of human behavior. We are social animals not because we’re just nice, but out of necessity. It’s about survival, in the end.

Pooling resources for power costs, or for health care, or any other purpose, serves the same purpose: survival via reduction of risk.
Dice: FOSS image correlation tool computes full-field displacements, strains
You’ve just significantly backpedaled from your comment right above...?
CI/CD and GitHub Actions
You can pretend to care about North Korean censorship all you want, but if you name your platform “Pepe,” positively cite 4chan as an influence, and take the time to criticize “cancel culture SJWs” then it’s quite clear what your intentions and motivations are, and who your audience is: you want to create a space run by and for racist pieces of garbage. You don’t actually care about free speech at all, and neither does anyone who is pretending that this platform will provide a public good.
People do have free speech rights at private owned malls. Not sure if that would apply to stores but courts have ruled it does apply to people at malls (and other public areas that are privately owned).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....
This is an interesting line of thought, which I don't know if I agree with or not. It might be worth exploring the contrapositive: "If a piece of speech is tolerable to at least someone, then it shouldn't be censored."

And that raises an absurd but still interesting thought experiment: if by some process, someone is able to create a statement that is intolerable to every single person on Earth, would it be okay to censor it?
Who was the guy who said, "There's no such thing as a 'stupid' idea, only great ideas that go horribly wrong."

It's all about the context, and having the requisite creativity to see the drawbacks on the horizon.

I think social media and surveillance marketing are good examples of what he was probably talking about. (Actually, IIRC, the quote was in relation to dating strippers, but you get the idea.)
I laughed at this, but this joke is probably out of date now.

In Australia, at least, every venue (restaurant, shop, indoor place you spend more then 5 minutes in) has a QR code that links to a form to add your name/email for contact tracing.

I guess the alternative is a book and pen and the front (which places have as backups) but it would be interesting to if all these QR codes everywhere have introduced many security issues or how much easier it actually made contact tracing vs the book.
"Thou shalt not kill" is also an absolute bedrock principle which is, of course, impossible to literally always follow.

But it's still a very important guidepost around which to orient your principles.

"Freedom of most OK speech is absolute" is a useless principle. Which is why we should not frame the freedom of speech as such.
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”

― Frederick Douglass
My rules (society's rules) are entirely orthogonal to the issue of discrimination against groups of people.

If individuals do not follow the rules, they should be punished, that's fine. If you apply the rules differently depending on what group a person belongs to, that's not ok.

... but that has nothing to do with my comment (I can't believe I have to explain this).
I agree that it feels wrong but what about this scenario:

A company produces an item with two features A and B.
It costs the company $200 to build a fully featured item.
It now builds two of them for the market but also realizes not everyone needs both A and B. Yet they'll still need to earn back the production cost of $400. So instead of selling fully featured items for $200 they sell one soft-locked version with only one feature for $100 and the fully featured one for $300. More people who can benefit from the product/more customers while still earning back the $400.
That’s hardly fair. The world is full of unbanked people, people who are simply not interesting to the regular banking system and so have no access to it. Yet they have needs. Bitcoin is probably crap for this because transaction costs, but the need is still there.
TransferWise makes it easy to forget how much of a pain it was to send money around internationally before.
UK didn’t immediately lock all borders tight.
Watch: this is some white dude worrying that white dudes might be silenced. Show me all the money trying to make marginalized voices heard and then you cannot fuck off into the multiverse like whichever anime show you Stan but don’t respect.
This project is pretty much what you are describing, only more secure and tailored for a pretty much single use case.
> I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶e̶s̶t̶ most profitable idea humankind has ever had.
So if I effectively monopolise free speech by drowning out all other speech, that's ok?
The finite resource in the Internet model is attention. We could redefine our regulations with that in mind. Perhaps that would helpful for addressing the filter bubble phenomenon.
There is a track record for nuclear and the line does not go in the good direction. Even France, which is often cited as a nuclear success, has underfunded decommissioning costs by a factor of 3 or 4. Building nuclear results in gouging ratepayers.
In the end, most malware runs an executable. If it's a ZIP file, it probably contains a binary. If it's a PDF, yes, it could contain an exploit, but nowadays, it's much more likely that it contains a link for the user to click and download malware from. And if it does contain an exploit, there's a decent chance that the exploit will be used to download and install an executable.

It feels like most malware is going backwards from the elaborate schemes of the past to "hey user, please run my malware".

Of course, state sponsored malware _can_ be the exception, although it often uses the same patterns, because they apparently work well enough against most targets.
The US collectively (cite, state, and federal) spends over $100B per year on policing. The DEA and its $3B budget isn't driving the incarceration rates.
> they can still use Google

How? Nobody in Australia can access Google without a proxy if Google blocks Australia. Google is entirely capable of doing this.
How about: drumming up hatred and demonizing people has a long history of terrible consequences, e.g., rwanda, nazi germany, kkk, ...
Hmm. This seems like an interesting protocol.

Not a big fan of the whole mod election approach though. Seems like it might just turn into a constant scramble for power. Still, the front page does seem to imply mods can only sorta block content so it might not be too bad.

Thank you for suggesting this.
Would love to see a legit reply to this point. Usenet is there.
Griddy is being a bit disingenuous here, IMO.

ERCOT operates a power-only market, unlike most grid operators. No producers get paid "for capacity" (for agreeing to be ready to provide power, even if they're not currently doing so). To provide a motivation for producers to have excess capacity, ERCOT allows the wholesale price of electricity to rise as high as $9000/MWh in shortage conditions.

During the past week when massive amounts of supply went offline ERCOT forced the downstream utilities to disconnect customers (shed load) to avoid bringing down the entire grid. This is what the "EEA 3" in Griddy's graphic means. After vast swathes of Texas were disconnected from the grid and prevented from buying power at any price, the market clearing price for those remaining on the grid was around $1200/MWh.

The Texas PUC ordered ERCOT to raise the price to the cap of $9000/MWh to accurately reflect that demand was vastly exceeding supply at that moment.

So was it an intervention? Yes. But the intervention was there to make the market function more like it was intended to. Shedding load from the grid was also (an earlier) intervention in the market. It's not really possible to operate a completely "free market" in electricity because of physical and moral constraints (are you really going to turn off electricity to the water treatment plant before some guy's mansion?) as we're seeing.
Yes, of course. This is presented as if it's some deep philosophical conundrum, when it's not.

An example: I'm gay and I have had friends that didn't agree with me in supporting gay marriage. One was an ultra-orthodox Jew that was my coworker, and we would disagree on just about everything politically, but we still managed to tolerate each other and even become friends. This is what should happen in a tolerant society.

Should we ban guys like him from Twitter if he decides to tweet against gay marriage? No, we shouldn't. We should tolerate his intolerance and have an open and honest debate.
Care to elaborate? How do you protect against abuse of any exceptions in the long term? Why do you characterise absolute freedom of speech as an "ignorant" take, which could be construed as a bad-faith discussion tactic on here.
Language and culture. The US citizens definitely have the us vs them mentality towards other countries, and so do intelligent beings realize this "me vs not me" concept. Perhaps when many small consciousnesses blend together in a certain way, a bigger consciousness emerges.
This begs the question, which is the default: light or full. You cannot claim to support freedom of speech and have this capacity in my opinion. It is implicitly saying some voices are less valid.

It is an interesting project technically, but I do not think it will replace the *chan model for edgy people to be edgy on the internet. If your opinions are so extreme that you feel that you must be anonymous and free from repercussions, they may be terrible opinions in the eyes of society.
Research what a critical fission reaction is, then come back and figure out why your sentence doesn't make sense.
When the message board begins to organize an effort to occupy the Whitehouse by force, to raise the flags of Trumpistan, therefore deleting all freedom of speech and the almighty dollar in favor of trumpcoin, it might be valid to shut em down.
Can anyone comment on the actual technical merit of this project? This seems like a kind of hybrid among other various distributed networks out there, like IPFS, Tor, Freenet, GNUnet, Zeronet, et alia.

As for the political side... just remember that amoral selfish people with reprehensible values are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, and we should be applauding their desire to build tools that benefit everyone.
"Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am soliciting donations in BTC, ETH, and XMR."

Anyone interested in "building a service no one can silence" ought to start with mesh radio protocols and solar power. Glad this asshole didn't.
You kid but i've received 2 pull-requests on my open-source project, which only goal was to replace "Blacklist" with "Blocklist" in the app preferences.

I don't receive many PRs. This is a real trend.
For CDs the metal is right under the label, so if you have a gouge on the label side, it's probably DOA.
There's also the problem (for me, and I have observed for others) that emails sent to lists or large numbers of recipients/CCs automatically get less attention and priority than emails sent to me individually.

If I get an "all hands" type of group email, I skim it, or maybe just read the subject line, depending on who it's from. Over time I've learned that there's almost never anything directly actionable for me in these messages.

The day is too short and there's too much to do to spend time carefully reading long-winded broadcast messages.
After blocking a few obvious idiots, my main take on Parler is that it’s really boring.

There are a few “thought leaders” (without much diversity), each followed by a tedious and repetitive peanut gallery.

I’m getting far more from reading on Substack.