skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One of the most offended I’ve seen my wife be was when she was told the only reason she wanted an assertive man was because she was brainwashed and deep down didn’t want it and was actually oppressed. She was a victim of the white male patriarchy and by being part of it she was an implicit supporter of racism. Meaning she had her agency to be her own person and have her own desires taken away from her, at least in this person’s eyes. She ended up not talking to this other person because she couldn’t get over the condescension. The feeling that the other person thought they were more enlightened or better than her. The only times I have stopped friendships have been similar - feeling like the other person looked down on me because of my choices or who I was.

I think there is a lot of pain brewing, and whether or not people come out the other side of it more entrenched in their worldview, or with more humility after having learned from the wild ride we are currently on.

Heck maybe I’ll come out the other side finally believing that there is only one true way to look at people and relationships and power differences, and any deviation from that is violence.
What was the outcome of your complaint to the HR department?
I stopped participating in social media outside of old-school forums, and my stress level went way down. I took a look around, saw that fewer people were living in poverty than ever, I have a quality of life my parents never had, and all the predictions of doom over the past decade or so never came about. Life is pretty much the same or slightly better for me since then. Maybe I am lucky, but a lot of the broad stats back up that this is a great time to be alive.
The First Amendment is an enemy to that solution.
Sure. But what do you do about it when people make a free choice to use engagement-optimized platforms? The problem of doomscrolling and outrage addiction is just a special case of the problem of superstimuli hijacking our savanna-derived ancestral social instincts and directing them in a profitable and maladaptive direction.

What do you do about it? Ban this algorithm here or that UI pattern there? Impossible. You can't blunt the desires (even the harmful desires) of billions of people through some kind of centralized rulemaking. Look at the total shitshow that emerged after NYC tried to impose a tiny tax on sugary soft drinks, which are obviously bad for you. Why would an attempt to control engagement optimized platforms work when the soda tax didn't even the harms of engagement metrics are much less clear and the product more universally desirable?

The only thing that's going to help us deal with the problem of internet outrage wireheading is giving society time to develop cultural antibodies naturally. Eventually, one way or another, spending your days arguing with strangers will become low status and shameful --- just like drinking a big gulp with 32768 calories per cup is low status now. (Not that status fully solves the problem.)

In the meantime, well, we just have to hold on. The problem isn't engagement metrics. The problem is human nature. We are literally the dumbest possible primate that could form a civilization: keep that in mind.
> It's filled with people who go into it because they want to change the world.

You may want to go into journalism to change the world, but you get hired in journalism for agreeing with the owners of media outlets.
Addiction to outrage isn't ruining anybody's life. It's an inability to control one's emotions that's ruining people's lives.

When somebody says something offensive to a well-adjusted person, do you know what they do? They shrug it off, because words are just that.

For some less-adjusted people, it seems an offensive statement is an existential threat of sorts.

Unfortunately, social media concentrates the less-adjusted people as well as the well-adjusted. It's just the less-adjusted have plenty of time to spend on social media.

It also doesn't help that most people don't really spend any time developing their mental resiliency as a child because educational environments are overly protective.
Where the mouse is now the size of a horse.

Ultimately this is a classic case of security through obscurity, it won’t protect us from deep fakes long term.
> You can't turn aluminium back into energy either

I hear otherwise, actually

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26609647
It's not just about giving feedback, it's also about how you give it. "You should switch roles" is a terrible piece of feedback. "You are failing to do X, Y, and Z; and Fred is doing those things very well" is much better. It allows for autonomy in determining how the team wants to handle said feedback, whether it's swapping roles, improving at current roles, or going out and finding more aligned investors.

Maybe doing it the first way works, too, but I think it is poor, lazy communication that used the zeitgeist as a crutch to make a difficult point. That doesn't mean it can't be done well and respectfully, which the given example perhaps did not.
They really trolled Krebs this time
The analog was regarding denial. Not the circumstances leading to losing the position of hegemon.
vatfy.com. just use david in front of the @ :)
I don't think that policy is ridiculous at all. It's mine as well, and IIRC it was Billy Graham's.

It minimizes the chances of (a) false accusations of inappropriate behavior, and (b) adultery.

It makes me a little sad for the limits it imposes on my friendships with women, but I consider the tradeoff very worthwhile.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that everyone should adopt my policy. I'm just saying that in my particular life circumstances, and with my particular ranking of concerns/values, it's a tradeoff that I find worthwhile.
This reminds my of this meme:

"It Hurt Itself in Its Confusion!"

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/it-hurt-itself-in-its-confusi...
100% agree with the premise. Outrage culture is ruining all reasonable discourse in this country (and world), and is now massively fueled by politicians, corporations, media for their own gains.

I do not, however, agree with their solution. Turning off the news/Facebook/Twitter and ignoring everything happening around you is not going to make things better.

The world has made a lot of progress over the last few centuries (as the article calls out), but all of it has been driven by common people like you and me getting outraged over things that might not directly concern us. Anger is sometimes justified.

Instead, when you read something that angers you, take a few minutes and do that extra step of research. Could it be completely fake? Does the headline reflect the contents of the article correctly (it is normally not written by the author)? Is the data researched and sourced? Is what you are reading heavily opinionated? Are you subscribed to a healthy mix of sources?

If enough people actually did this (instead of reading the title and going straight to Twitter/Reddit/HN), meaningless outrage will disappear without the trade-off of not being informed about the world. You will organically discover that everything is a lot more reasonable and moderate than people want you to believe. And if something actually isn't, you will be able to see it.
Can't find the exact segment, but these guys who provided the videos to multiple news sources claim minimum over 500k

https://youtu.be/mE-XvGMiyRQ?t=1488

"For sure hundreds of thousands"

Those who went to the Capital are probably less, I'm not sure anyone has estimated that. I'm sure many people left after Trump's speech.
https://wallhaven.cc has a solid selection and some basic filters.
> He also criticizes people who raise children with Down's syndrome

No, he criticises people who decide to give birth to children with Down's syndrome, when they have the option of terminating the pregnancy. And while every living human being deserves to be treated with the same dignity, wilfully deciding to bring to existence a human being with a terrible genetic handicap is simply cruel.
What is going on in Google web services?
After trying to use Google Dialog Flow CX web API, I found that the JSON response from the web service is invalid and it contains ")]}'\n" at the beginning of every response.

After trying to find out what was exactly going on, I thought that maybe it serves a purpose that I don't yet know in the internal messenger. So I decided to find that string in the internal messenger in this link https://www.gstatic.com/dialogflow-console/fast/messenger-cx/messenger-internal.min.js?v=4 .

And guess what? I found the mysterious string ")]}'\n" in a return of a function that I think is used for sub-stringing.
I'm not sure yet but after what I've seen (non-minified and formatted JSON with unknown string at the start of it), I think that something is off.

Any thoughts on this?

Link of messenger bootstrap script:
https://www.gstatic.com/dialogflow-console/fast/messenger-cx/bootstrap.js?v=1
This article is the dark underbelly of "I Like that the Big Boat is Stuck".
Eye for an eye really isn't a great way to run a society.
Did you write about it in detail somewhere? I would like to read it if you had.

Also in my life professional and personal connections are not totally separated, as I view a person as a person. As an example helped my ex partners very significantly in their professional life (while they helped me in other ways).
If they truly had no caffeine tolerance, iirc back when I first started ingesting more than I was used to it would make me a bit sick to my stomach.
There's being a professional but there's also not seeing the situation you are in. I would be hesitant to be in a one on one situation in a private area with a female colleague, especially one below me in the organisational structure. Even an unfounded accusation could completely derail my life and career.

When I was young I had something similar happen. A woman went around telling people she had slept with me. We hadn't. Nobody believed my side of the story since "why would she lie?". This caused a rift with my best friend, who had a crush on her. I lost my best friend due to a lie I couldn't disprove.
I utterly adore that my workplace has a strict ban on using any company resources such as the email system for non-work related business. The one time in eight years someone sent a political email they were formally reprimanded.
I don't think that's generous at all. It's characterizing all white men. If I told a bad math student to think what an Asian person would do would you take the "generous interpretation" of "study more"?

Why not just say what you mean without the racial stereotypes?
Sure - however the post I responded to said China had a declining economy. Is that correct or not?
This is a very privileged, ignorant take.

He seems to be lumping in all outrage as the same. People being outraged at Nike doing something is the equivalent to voter rights being taken away because certain people of a certain race vote a certain way. These things aren't remote the same.

And his idea that political parties should "work together" often means you're negotiating the rights of people, who neither party member usually is part of, either to have more or less rights, and you're negotiating them like they're bargaining chips.

This author and so many people who aren't part of marginalized groups really can't grasp this.
And no HR department. No complaints, fewer sick leave, everyone focussed on meritocracy = no competition on victimisation = little need for paperwork / risk mitigation = no HR, and no meetings about this. It’s a huge business expenditure, worth a good 15% of the total mass.
Apparently the research on that is sketchy. It is only an advantage if specifically sought out and used. It requires work. Otherwise it can just lead to bad communication and less team spirit. (I am paraphrasing a recent article from somewhere)
While I agree with the overall feeling of the article, I couldn't help but smile at the irony of its clickbait title (which seemed unintended). Sensationalism definitely attracts the eye.
Before deep learning (ca 2013), the SOTA was using descriptors: KAZE, SIFT, SURF, ORB etc use keypoints & descriptors based matching.[1] . Other approaches relied on shape (edge), color matching using color and shape histograms comparisons e.g. HOG [2].

Plenty of approaches existed prior to deep learning, it's just that DL just blew those out of the water with its performance.

p.s. BTW I would bucket these approaches as ML too. ML >> DL

[1] https://docs.opencv.org/master/db/d27/tutorial_py_table_of_c...

[2] https://docs.opencv.org/master/d5/d33/structcv_1_1HOGDescrip...
What do you infer from that? I infer that lots of people are using throwaways because they want to express an opinion without risking the consequences the article alludes to.
> Quibbling over what qualifies as a battery is besides the point, I think

What is the point of this hand-waving, meaning-erasing, semantic drift then?

The term "battery" has a definition, the term "store of value" has a definition too, a different one. It that what they're groping for? There is no need for this amateur-hour waffle.
It's tricky.

I started piano lessons last year late in my life with explicit purpose to learn music theory and apply it to my limited and plateaued guitar skills.

It took several weeks to persuade my teacher that "learning music theory" is not the same thing as "learning sheet music".

I want to learn truths and relationships and connections which are separate and independent from any specific culturally and historically burdened notation.

Notation has its place and I won't claim its useless, of course its not... But i do see too many instructors think it a mandatory step when it isn't (FWIW, I've been studying music theory for a year now with tremendous weekly enlightenment and still cannot read sheet music and it's not my I'm ediate goal. If anything I find that way madness lies - math and relationships and insights of music theory are beautiful and universal and eye opening. Sheet music is a crap ton of inconsistencies we are stuck with, giving privileged view to a random scale and basicly hindering true understanding. I want to build as much understanding as I can before getting stuck in C major as a random baseline :-)

So I would say music theory to sheet music is at best math theory to written numbering system. And both are separate from any practical skill that utilizes them - just like you CAN be a great blacksmith or craftsperson with developed intuitive uderstanding of your matter, without learning blueprints and its notation (though it doesn't hurt and for some things it's necessary)
> The problem is that some few people are absolutely hellbent on interpreting any interaction through a lens of sexism or racism, and a large silent majority allows them for fear of drawing unwanted attention and/or harm.

A lot of people might not just be that good at what they do but manage to advance by way of their gender/race and scare away any negative feedback. Thus, given that their skills themselves won't save them, leveraging mob justice to do so is a viable strategy for them.
One example I overheard was a female engineer talking to another female non-engineer outside their workplace just about their experiences in their jobs. I heard the female engineer remark something along the lines of "the Architect often shoots down my ideas because I'm female".

I sat thinking to myself... That's interesting because the architect shoots down my ideas too (different workplace, so I don't _know_ her situation) but it's certainly not because I'm female, because I'm not female, but it's probably because I'm an intermediate level Dev with lots to learn and the idea has some flaws in it that he can see that I can't.

One of the really good things for me about hanging on HN is hearing "X happens to me too as a man because (reasons) and has nothing to do with gender." That's been enormously helpful to me in trying to find a path forward in my own life.

I hope you get constructive engagement of your points. I don't like the characterization that it's sexism on both sides but that's not intended to be a big attack or something. I think we don't have good language for talking about these issues that acknowledge in a non-blamey fashion that "Gender is, in fact, a factor in outcomes and it's complicated."

So far, we mostly do a sucky job of trying to discuss this at all. It ends up being people on both sides pointing fingers and even if you are bending over backwards to not point fingers, it will get interpreted as such by a lot of people and that tends to go bad places, not good.
The internet has magnified it but outrage had been driving American culture for decades before social media. At least since 24 hour news, and that too was just expanding an old playbook for new tech (cable television).

Unplugging is a good tool for all of us but the real problem is that outrage is ruining all our lives, not just those who indulge it.
Yes, woke culture creates an atmosphere where men and non-minorities may be overly cautious about what they do and say, possibly to everyone’s detriment.

But let’s be clear here. That’s not the root cause. The root cause is the undeniably real treatment of women and minorities that created that reactionary mode.

A number of people I talk to (curiously, they tend to be production engineers) think we live in a meritocracy where racism and sexism have virtually been erased. They usually believe a calvinist work ethic and capacity for enduring suffering creates an equal opportunity for everyone. But that’s just not true. I’ve seen cabs skip Black people hailing them to stop at me. I have heard the n-word used disparagingly, liberally and freely at informal gatherings in central Pennsylvania or by drivers for car dealership service centers.

I am very close to a woman lawyer who is regularly challenged about her school and where she passed the bar in a way that doesn’t match the experience of her male colleagues. I have seen video clips of a professor making inappropriate remarks about a student’s looks during a review of her work. It’s anecdotal, but not hard to find.

So, when you are upset that everyone is holding statements up to the light and wondering if someone’s ethnicity or gender is behind them, blame the people who actually caused it. It’s not the fault of ‘woke’ people or those who ‘virtue signal.’ It’s people who are actually, consciously or not, discriminating and perpetuating discrimination. They are at fault.
Apologies, I assumed a background in logic programming -I should have explained things better. Yes, your interpretation of the second prorgam is correct and yes your idea is not off base at all :)
I no longer give much attention to nutrition or sports performance studies that test a handful of people for a few weeks. It's simply not enough people, not a long enough study, and probably not controlled enough. My guess is that there are or will be (a) study(ies) with pretty much the opposite outcome.

Years ago "studies showed" that caffeine had an anabolic effect that aided muscle growth. Now it seems that the opposite is "thought" to be true. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28177708/]
The only path forward is for enough high-profile, hyper-woke behavior examples to get negative public exposure. As long as men are afraid of accidentally becoming the target of the next donglegate, it's safer to just not engage.
> Presumably this doesn’t occur if a female VC is giving that advice to females founders

"She has internalized misogyny". Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being targeted by the woke mob.
And a the interpretation of an experience, however personal, is not some singular, universal truth.
What a BS article. How about we give advice and feedback that is... not sexist? Crazy idea, right?!
If you say things that are not sexist nobody will accuse you of sexism. Simple as that. And if you don't know what is and what is not sexist then most likely you are sexist. Then go and educate yourself on the topic, and don't waste time writing excuses on online forums.
1. Ensure there are non-engagement-optimized alternative platforms on offer — or even platforms that specifically avoid recommending inflammatory content. (If we don’t even have this much done, there’s very little we can recommend for effective change. What are you going to tell people who live their lives indoors—as we’re all mostly doing right now? Don’t be social at all?)

2. Once we have non-engagement-optimized platforms, promote them as healthful, the way new diet fads get promoted. Get therapists/psychiatrists in on it. Run Public Service Advertisements that don’t mention a specific platform by name but just encourage the use of “healthy platforms.” Lobby for laws preventing depiction of use of engagement-optimized platforms in children’s media (i.e. treat depictions of Facebook the same as depictions of smoking.)
A lot of modern technology is something like the evolution of an angler fish.

Design a technology, optimize that technology for some metric, figure out a way to profit from it.

An angler fish lights up, attracts prey which hasn't learned to know any better, and eats it.

A tech company lights up with a feed, optimizes it (often blindly) to whatever attracts the most prey... er ... audience, and then takes from them what it can.

We didn't evolve in an environment with this kind of psychologically manipulative trickery, and the tech companies often barely know that what they are doing is manipulation at all, they're just measuring success and iterating to enhance that metric.
The NYT's involvement in the Iraq War was not ineptitude, but the intentional passing on of administration claims not only without criticism, but while also excluding and attacking critical voices as borderline seditious.

It was also editorially consistent with the NYT's positions before and after the fact.

Painting Judith Miller and her coworkers as a hapless accident is defaulting to excusing an outlet you identify with. The NYT was not doing good, badly. The NYT was doing bad, knowingly.
It needs to go in the reverse direction to correct. We need less opinions than ever.
I think it's now essentially a risk-reward decision, like the author said. And the potential risk of being ousted after being accused of something weighs very high.
Some very real issue have been highlighted in the last few years, issues that we really should have dealt with decades ago and I think you're right, there's currently an overreaction from society. That's will correct it self, even if some may still not like where we end up.

Sadly if you're concerned with these overreaction, and voice those concerns, you will be labelled as being against the chance. You quickly learn to shut up and just wait it out.
Study: U.S. Media's Covid Coverage Slants Heavily Negative
That comment might make sense a decade ago (when it was mostly relegated to academic journals)[1], but it's been in common use (at least in the U.S.) for years.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
[2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=cisgende...
Hence "The Interesting Times Gang" - a bunch of even more Special Special Circumstances ships.
"Hey XXX,and YYY, do you have time for a discussion tomorrow at lunch? I noticed some things that make me think the company could benefit from you two swapping some responsibilities. I've noticed XXX struggles to aaa,for example aaa1, aaa2 and at aaa3, and at aaa4 YYY seemed to feel very comfortable doing aaa despite having less experienced, and conversely I think XXX's experience might be better suited for bbb, because of my experience at CCCC. Happy to share more of my thoughts and get your own opionion on this at lunch"

I actually fail to see how you can respectfully tell someone you think they should swap roles and be sexist. Sure, if your whole argument is that "XXX isn't coming of agressive enough to survive in this boys game" then you might be accused of sexism...for some reason