skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Who is responsible for cancel culture? Tech censorship? "Believe All Women"? Who is calling for a new War on Terror targeting the domestic population?
This explanation ignores the cabal of moderators which controls all political subreddits, as well as the fact that /r/politics and /r/worldnews are regularly ridiculed in the rest of reddit for being Bernie-Central, to the poinnt that posting about other candidates on the left gets you called a traitor.
Anyway that's why I get my politics on /r/anime_titties.
You're right. They were on the side of the fascists. And the Allied world came together to stop them.

Strongly consider who it is you're allying with and what it about you. It's not as heroic as you would love for it to seem.
> Could you give example of component that is 100% correct? I feel that even components can be 100% correct only within context, e.g. within ideal automaton under expected limitations and we don't have that.

Verified* instances in safe Idris. Of course GIGO is still valid and failures in lower-level components (such as a processor just not behaving as specified) can cause failures in higher-level components, but it's simply impossible for there to be a failure in that component itself - any observed failure will necessarily be the result of a lower-level failure.
I'm cheerfully open to a critique of capitalism but with sincere respect "it destroyed the naive, idyllic past" can only be a positive. By any measure, more people are living better lives, and the number of people living in grinding squalor diminishes steadily. Given that capitalism is the dominant paradigm, my conclusion is that this progress is due to it. Again, I'm open to new information (e.g. I do wonder if, say, slavery is an inevitability of completely unrelated markets; or perhaps exactly the opposite).

I have little doubt that as scarcity itself diminishes, more people will have more time for contemplative, fulfilling experiences and activity. That such an article as this is read and discussed is definitely not a sign that we have lost something important, but that we are collectively gaining
Look harder. I understand though, since there are so many of them. I was surprised myself.

Here is an opinion piece from the extremely left Paul Krugman:

> Well, the dog whistle days are over. Republicans are pretty much back to saying “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-twitter-rac...

For the ultimate in irony, it appears here, uncensored, in an article about a guy who got fired for not censoring his references to others using it. He asked a student to stop calling him it, and got fired for using the word. And NYT prints it (with the byline being a white guy).

But if that wasn’t absurd enough, the guy who was fired for asking a student to stop calling him that was black.

A black guy got fired because he asked a student to stop calling him nigger. This is how far we have come.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/wisconsin-security-gua...
You don't get any rights. And as you mention you still need to consult and trust a central authority, here the artist, to know who is the real owner.

There are interesting use cases for NFT but for art it doesn't really solve anything new.
Earn in Crypto
The problem is left and right are not a single dimension. Liberal left wing policies can often overlap with libertarian right wing policies. This is because the align on the freedom dimension. There are other examples but I don't think you can argue that Mao and Stalin are not left wing. They both push the idea that the state can and should supply the needs of the people. This is a very left wing view on both the financial and social dimension.
I'm a big fan of Carlo Pescio's musings. Thanks for the link!
> with roughly the same beliefs and culture as it's had for the past 1000 years.

I'm not sure this demonstrates a deep understanding of the shifting patterns within Islamic culture.
I was a bit shocked when I was hit by this a couple of years back (2017) and learned that browsers are adamant about providing autocomplete, going so far as to infer the type from labels or placeholder strings.

The problem was even more frustrating because it seemed like disabling it was the only workaround to prevent a strange mobile Safari issue where the autocomplete bar would push the "next/prev element - Done" bar, on top of the keyboard, up so it would overlap the "position: fixed; bottom: 0;" element on the page (which was the input the user was trying to write into).

The argument that the user would complain to the browser vendor if he couldn't autocomplete is a bit strange to me. I would think the real novice users would begrudgingly accept the inconsistent behaviour and the users that do care about it would complain to the website they were on. But then again I haven't read any user studies regarding this.
If the flaw of DDD is that there is no emphasis on when not to use it, then the flaw of Peter's article is that, according to him, you should never use it ("software should be designed around function rather than domain").

I agree with his point that DDD will restrict an application that could be generic to a specific domain. When you can build something generic you should. But not everything can be made that way.

Also: "someone who should not communicate with humans" is a little bit too much.
Free speech as a "prescriptive social norm" has never been unlimited or free of consequences though.

Discourse within the "acceptable" range has been true free speech certainly, but step outside those boundaries and throughout US history there have been serious repercussions. Common law courts have long recognized that if you walk up to someone on the street and scream obscenities at them you have no recourse when you get punched in the face - the concept of "fighting words". Even today no one bats an eye when a restaurant doesn't allow a patron to dine there when they don't meet the restaurant's arbitrary dress code or if the patron has an "offensive" t-shirt slogan. Various forms of ostracism have been used against people speaking out against what is acceptable since human society has existed.

State Governments have punished speech they don't as well. For example in the South pre-Civil War many southern states made it illegal to publish anti-slavery books, newspaper articles, and speeches. You could literally be arrested for speaking against slavery in any form.

I think the actual social norm you're talking about is acceptance of conservative political discourse and opinion. Certain kinds of political discourse have been verboten in the US (eg people were fired and blacklisted for communism) so that's not new as a concept, but this is the first time in US history there is strong pushback against conservatism.

To some degree I see this social pressure as being weaponized because so much of the US is gerrymandered and tiled in the favor of conservatives*. Despite being a minority party Republicans control a majority of state legislatures. CA gets two senators. A group of 11 rural conservative states representing the same population gets 22 senators. When a rump party that represents a strict minority of the population gets to continuously impose its will, change voting rules, pack the Supreme Court, and so forth are you truly surprised when a lot of people get angry? When some people are no longer willing to be polite about politics?

When the normal relief valve - elections having consequences - gets subverted for decades that pressure must find relief somewhere.

The pressure is even more intense now that the major conservative party in the US is openly embracing nationalism and at least some are openly advocating for ending democracy: whether you agree with it or not the Republican party has declared war on the majority of the US population. Some people are going to see that as an existential threat and respond accordingly.

* I know the pedants will want to divert discussion to how the US is arranged into separate states deliberately, federalism, etc. I am well aware of those arguments, there is no need to re-hash them. Much like calling universal healthcare and worker protections "socialism", or trying to fine/punish people and take down their video clips due to "copyright claims" all you are doing is teaching the upcoming generations that socialism is better at solving problems, copyright should be abolished, and federalism sucks. Proceed at your own peril.
I still play games in =<60fps, I see it like training in a gravity room ;)

Jokes aside, I'm happy I haven't had the same experience as you for gaming. Because then I would have to buy into high performance gaming. I can now happily play a game on something like Stadia or my old Macbook without having to feeling something is wrong or missing. Kinda like how watching movies on VHS was fine until HD came along. Now every artifact or resolution drop in a video is an annoyance.
Two decades ago, the internet wasn't even encrypted. You're living in a fantasy history.
> If you run a bar and after a year or two you realize that all of your patrons are nazis

It could also mean that nazis like your bar.

I've seen this argument get politicized too much to the point of it being emotional. Like your nazi reference.

Social platforms should be moderated according to law. Whatever users legally & lawfully discuss in your platforms should not restricted. And this kind of applying pressure towards platforms worries me. They are merely tools. Let the law deal with this issue and leave free speech alone.
trans women are women. period.
I am not a laywer, and this is not legal advice.

There was a high-profile case, brought by LinkedIn, and it was ruled against them, setting precedent, at least in the U.S., that scraping is allowed.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/09/victory-ruling-hiq-v-l...
Complete nonsense false equivalence. Gab is _dominated_ by far-right racist content and conspiracy theories. My mum uses Twitter and doesn't see a single far-left opinion, 99% of the content on Twitter is that way.

You're comparing an entire polluted pool that is unfit to swim in with a single floating turd in the ocean.
I agree with your main point that the article is not suggesting giving up.

It does amuse me though that an ideal of perfection is having no legacy code, all written with the latest technologies.

I once spent some time refactoring some really old gnarly code to be beautiful and well designed. The rest of the team looked on in horror and asked why I was replacing highly reliable, battle tested code that had been in successful operation for nearly ten years!
To elaborate —

Domain driven design is about understanding the business requirements enough to know “this is fundamental to the domain” versus “this is going to change next month”.

In the accounting example, when you talk to the accountants and develop an ubiquitous language, you’ll notice that long term concepts are “assets”, “transactions”, “taxes”, etc. while the transient things are exact tax rates, how transactions are structured (eg, net 30), etc.

So you’d build your system to match:

- A foundation of transacting assets/currency/inventory

- A system for defining transaction flows

- A system for reporting transaction aggregates (eg, for tax filings)

Domain driven design doesn’t say which of those to hardcode versus make user configurable — it says to talk to your users until you understand the domain, then build software that reflects that.

Like most good ideas, people get way too formulaic about it sometimes.
Why is it not possible for you to upvote?
Here's a few problems with fixing satellites.

1. From the ground, you have no idea what is wrong with the satellite, whether or not the problem is fixable, and even if it is, what exact tooling/replacement parts need to be brought up.

2. Satellites are not designed to be easily taken apart.

3. Doing any kind of technical work in a spacesuit is incredibly difficult.

The extra cost of building your satellite with sufficient self-diagnostics, with a design that lets someone in a spacesuit take it apart and conduct meaningful repairs on it is going to be paid every single time you launch that satellite. This cost, in both design, and engineering is not trivial.

And the only time you'll ever get any value from it is if you go ahead and do another, even more expensive space launch - this time human-rated. This launch is likely to head on up, and discover that no, they don't have the right tools, replacement parts, or even ability to access the broken parts of the satellite.

The overwhelming cost of a satellite is the R&D that goes into designing it. If space launches are cheap, the correct economics to follow are "Just build two of them, and if the first one breaks, launch the second one."
You're still ignoring the problem of trust. If I am explicitly avoiding a word but you chose to repeat what I'm saying but explicitly use it, this can be taken as lack of care or even explicit hostility if there is a lack of trust.

To exaggerate the situation greatly, imagine a black man filing a harassment complaint with a white sheriff in the deep south. The black man is saying "they called me a racial epithet", to which the sheriff replies "you mean they called you a n*r?". Do you think the black man would be unjustified in feeling more uncomfortable and not being sure that the sheriff is not trying to demean him?
Which is frustrating enough, but I’ve heard rumors that AWS’ (and other cloud) providers sometimes do weird things with routing, so ICMP doesn’t even take the same path as TCP traffic. Other times ICMP is just blocked somewhere along the way. I recommend TCPPing or similar for doing investigations.
Nobody that hired me has ever been dissapointed by what they got, but there’s a ton of people that never hired me because I can’t tell them whether something is O(n) or O(n*n), just ‘faster’ and ‘slower’.

Who the hell cares what it’s called as long as it’s the fastest it’s ever going to be.

> Do you have options other than caching?

Yes, but who cares since they’re all worse (for your wallet and for speed).

I may still be a bit salty.
DDD principles are very helpful and "robust" but they address, specifically, untangling complex domains and requirements: sometimes it's the main software design challenge, but often other aspect of architecture that DDD doesn't have a lot to say about are much more difficult and/or important.

For example, from a domain driven point of view Awk operates on a simple structural hierarchy of input and output files, lines and fields; designing a nice DSL around the obvious operations on these entities is clearly a much greater achievement than designing (or rather postulating) this model.
server as in the server daemon, not server as in the physical server.
Tailoring Wi-Fi connectivity to improve the passenger experience
> There are also inharmonics—frequencies that aren't multiples of the fundamental. Those tend to die out quickly because they don't form standing waves in the resonating body.

This is only true for one-dimensional vibrations on strings and the air inside a long tube. Two and three-dimensional bodies have overtones with arbitrary ratios to the fundamental, depending on the shape of the object. Bells need to be carefully tuned to have harmonic spectrum, but this is an artificial construction based on western music tastes (who wants octaves to not be dissonant). Other percussion instruments (e.g., the indonesian gamelan) are deliberately tuned to a non-harmonic overtone sequence adapted to the local music tastes. You can certainly have inharmonic overtones that don't die out quickly! And they can form standing waves in the resonating body, just like the fundamental.
Gab is older and in the old days, attracted alt right and downright nazis, however they banned the absolute worst by now.

So it has roots in the alt-right/nazi/4chan community and predates parler by a lot.

They used to have their own software, then switched to mastodon, but turned off the peering and added custom code apparently full of SQL injection.

Parler is very new and has roots in more conservative circles. It’s written from ground up and is apparently pretty bad, although it’s not working anymore.
Similar anecdote: I recently investigated tablets to use for drawing.

Everybody online said the non-plus-ultra was the iPad Pro, even compared to other name-brand devices from Samsung/Microsoft.

So I tried them both, and wow. 120fps and a screen optimized for low delay really makes an enormous difference.

With all other tablets, it was more a question of "well how more or less awkward does this feel to use", where that question didn't even come up with the iPad.

I know this sounds like shilling, but I recommend just trying it out on a real device sometime, even or especially if you have no intent of buying one.
First, the students were in high school, not college. This story is all about details.

Second, what sexist language, exactly? What did he actually say? We certainly can't trust the mere accusation from a source like The Daily Beast. And again, this story is all about details.

Third, it's easy to believe the NYT overreacted here given the evidence from other incidents. For example:

James Bennet, the editorial page editor, resigned under pressure after publishing an op-ed by a sitting US Senator.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-benn...

Lauren Wolfe, a freelance editor, claims she was fired for tweeting “Biden landing at Joint Base Andrews now. I have chills.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/lauren-wo...

Bari Weiss, who accused the paper of "unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge" described the situation as:

> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor.

> Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.

> All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain.

> Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

> Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
I was wondering about that. I suppose, things that the user wants to share publicly can be done so (via powerbox), but otherwise, everything else would not be.

Are you using the grain model for each individual files to be shared?

(I looked up your email and I would like to continue chatting about this).
Hailing from a country that both experienced fascism and, ironically, is currently seeing some domestic activity in this regard, that's not how it's going to go.

Fascists don't "recruit" anyone - as a cult of power they require full compliance, so they're incompatible with a great many conservatives and essentially all free-speech advocates.
> 1. Don't expect you'll build models that aren't leaky. For example, your seemingly perfect model will still include tech infrastructures like Stream<User> or Flux<User>, unless you are using advanced languages like Scala and can parametrize them as TMonad<User>

I'm a Scala dev and I know monads, but what exactly is TMonad<User>? Like `[T: Monad](users: T[Users])`?

> 2. Although it claims to help you to build pure models, the platform you're targeting will most likely still decide your model

I think that is a crucial point. In fact, the platform _is_ very often part of the domain and should be part of the language in DDD. It's one of the reasons why no-code solutions fail and why there is often a mismatch between developers and product-team - the latter does not see these things as part of the domain, but they are and if you don't describe them as it, there quickly is a mismatch between dreams and reality.
What's arbitrary about it?

Just be nice to people! Don't go around saying racist or sexist or homophobic things in public.

We'd really, really like it if our kids grew up not being scared to tell us they're gay, or if our black friends would be no more scared of a white cop than our white friends are, or if our trans women friends aren't at risk of being murdered for using a pointlessly gendered public facility.

And while people are at it, it'd be really nice to stop electing white racists to the leadership of prominent and powerful countries.

My sense of the younger generation here is that if they're tired of it it's because they don't understand what our problem is.
It's true that VNC is a disaster, but RDP still feels miles behind thrid-party tech like TeamViewer. And doesn't MSFT stil cripple RDP on Home editions?
So what you are saying is they are in fact microtransactions.
I really wanted to drive that point home.
CN then?
In my opinion (IANAL), making claims in their IPO that aren’t true might end up being the most damaging for them, if found to be true, and if someone cares to work that angle.
There are many reasons.

- Not everyone has such good connectivity.

- So you can handle many streams at once, like in a big meeting, without a server mixing them.

- So you can have decent quality video on the same limited connection.

- So you can archive large amounts of speech.

- To advance the state of the art.

- etc.
List your tech event: a guide to Startup Digest
Peergos.me is just one public gateway, and yes it could block whatever it wants or be blocked by DNS, but anyone can run a gateway, locally or publicly. Ideally in long term, browsers end up supporting the protocol and then the gateways can be turned off.

It's static websites only at this point.
No clue about this, but I can imagine a highly elliptical orbit in perspective projection makes a seemingly sharp turn at the highest point, right?
The Netflix Cosmos Platform. Orchestrated Functions – Netflix TechBlog
Unprofessional opinion, I think the powers on the right are pushing "cancel culture" to make the crazy stuff they're saying seem okay.

Like, we have a congresswoman blaming California wildfires on Jewish space lasers.

The republicans can deflect from the crazy by claiming "the left" is "cancelling" these people. When in reality any public figure that said crap like that would be shunned. Probably even more in past when American society was outwardly more polite.
they could have used "personal server" instead ?
Video Game Programming from Scratch with Casey Muratori
That is the one. It's also an introduction to structuring an F# application so it might not be for everyone but it's an easy read.

Also I'd recommend getting it from here. https://pragprog.com/titles/swdddf/domain-modeling-made-func...

Just because I personally like the pragprog site.
back then I remember that people generally had a single computer, used by the whole family! It's definitely not good for kids to trivially install a banking trojan when downloading stuff. Nowadays: all my data belongs to a single user, I am the only user on 5 machines. The only thing for which root is good, is to secure fw updating and deleting ZFS/BTRFS-snapshots. Unfortunately there's still setuid-binaried weakening this security model.