skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Let's say you're NYT counsel, and you're arguing this case. You have two arguments:

Argument 1) This isn't libel because it's true, and

Argument 2) This isn't libel because we're allowed to lie to our readership.

Argument 1 causes you no reputational harm. Arguement 2 is an announcement to the world that you've abdicated all journalistic integrity.

Do you make argument 2 if you're confident in argument 1?

Regardless, argument 1 must not be bullet proof, because their motion to dismiss was rejected and the suit is moving forward.
You get paid right now for your time.

You get paid next year a rate based on how productive you are today.

Even when companies don't give proper raises, this still ends up applying when you quit and go to another company because you've spent x% more time actually coding instead of waiting or busy work, and you can command a higher salary.
That's a locked page. English Wikipedia is well known for left bias.
Mathematical results should never be accepted or rejected by whether you "trust this guy". You should read the work, think about it, and decide for yourself whether the results are right or wrong.
Does she want to break them up for for the benefit of the people she represents, or does she want to break them up because they're 'snotty' to her? She's explicitly said it's because of the latter. I hope it's because of the former, but I have to trust her own words are lies to believe that!
> Both seem to ignore the fact that whatever worked in year X will not work in year X+50, because the society, technology and politics moved on.

This is true, which means it's important to look at the context.

The fairness doctrine was from a time when there was limited airtime. Things were broadcast and anything so broadcast filled space that couldn't be used by something else. Filling the airwaves with a singular opinion literally prevented any others from being carried. The fairness doctrine was meant to counteract this.

Today that technical problem does not exist. Everything is on demand. The economic cost in terms of storage and bandwidth is so low that the likes of YouTube and Facebook can carry everything published by everyone. Problem solved, right? Just carry everything; completely fair.

Except that they reintroduced the scarcity artificially through market consolidation. There are effectively three major cable news networks and every one of them is aligned with a political party.

Because that's what happens when there are so few of them. If you have dozens then they each carve out a niche. One caters to socialists, another to libertarians, another to moderates etc. You get a greater diversity of viewpoints and, importantly, less tribal warfare because there is more overlap between any given pair of outlets.

And it thwarts the even more problematic attempts by partisans to capture the incumbents and enforce ideological conformity through them, because it's not as effective if you have a dozen other competitors who aren't just shills for the other team (and therefore have credibility) rightfully pointing out the lies told by competitors they otherwise agree with and keeping each other honest.

What we need is less media consolidation. More competition. Applies to the media as much as the tech companies.
I think the point is that white people are likely to lack this lived experience. If there's a massive difference in opinion about racism in the country between white and black Americans, that difference of opinion may be due to factors that white people can't easily see.
I think it's more likely that one BBC journalist and their friends hadn't heard of it, because they don't sell it in Waitrose.

They can make a whole series of articles, as they "discover" damsons, greengage, quince, mulberries, gooseberries, etc.

(Between my parents, grandparents, and places like the car park at the back of my mum's office, we picked all of these in England.)

There are plenty of results on British websites for medlar trees (for gardeners) and recipes for the fruit.
the diff goes up for everyone, not just you. you still have a relative advantage over all the other miners who have not yet reproduced your efficiency gains.
> The words sexism/racism often get confused with discrimination.

Oxford definition of “sexism” via Google:

> prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex

The definition of sexism seems to include discrimination. What definition are you using?
Very cool stuff!

And exactly what I was looking for when hitting compiler errors in Zig.

Thank you!
Software is a fun field where the people who make it want to consume as little of it as possible.
I liked Surgical Reading better: https://every.to/superorganizers/surgical-reading-how-to-rea...
The “battery” in the article is misleading. I wouldn’t call bitcoin a battery any more so than I would call aluminum a battery.

The point the article appears to make is that bitcoin mining is much more elastic in its energy use and is therefore uniquely fit to fill some niche energy markets.

That’s completely different from and quite a far cry from being a “battery”.
Well yea, in the same way that McDonalds employees aren't all billionaires.
You can change that behavior now in newer versions of git:

git config --global submodule.recurse true

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1899792/why-is-git-submo...
Good luck! You'll need it (both because a startup is a risky business, and also because Romania still has a long way to become fully business friendly and well... developed). On the other hand: no risk, no reward.
Yes, odd. Data point: me and most of my SE friends/coworkers pay for JetBrains IDEs (I was pretty deep into emacs and vim for many years prior to switching).
"Readers" becomes "costumers"
"Telling readers the truth" becomes "satisfying the customers"
Subtle but important differences

edit: replaced "=>" with "becomes"
Opinion is fine. The more opinions the better.

But claiming some opinions are verboten or others must be accepted as fact rapidly destroys any historical reputation for a media organization.

It’s gotten so bad that a the NYT apologized for letting a sitting US Senator (Tom Cotton)[1] publish an op-ed that diverged with the views of its subscribers.

I might think that Senator Warren is an idiot, but I have no issue with her expressing her stupidity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o...
> Foster daughter had brown skin, so she was randomly stopped by police and asked for ID because she looks like an immigrant.

This conclusion isn't quite there.

In China, foreigners are notionally required to carry their passport with them. I have never actually obeyed that, because it is a very bad idea. And it's never mattered, because although I'm obligated to produce it on demand, that demand has never been made.

It's not because I blend in. Any idiot can see that I'm not Chinese. "Looking like an immigrant" is not sufficient to be stopped by the police.
By your argument, Amazon's aggressive stance towards Sanders and Alabama worker's unionization is an indication that they are doing something right.
Yes, it’s not rotting, just ripening, the same as the process (astringent) persimmons. Describing it as “rotten” is being a little overly dramatic.
If you're a penny-pinching American news channel, a panel of pundits is a lot cheaper than having somebody in the field, whether that's a field correspondent or just a freelancer. Every time something happens in some far-flung corner of the globe you need new people and equipment on the spot, but your in-house pundits are always ready to show up to the studio and bloviate.

Talking about other people's reporting is cheaper than doing your own reporting. The question is, can American news conglomerates not afford to do proper reporting, or have they just found that it's more profitable to leave that to others?

To put it another way, if we found ways to bring more money back into journalism (e.g. By making companies like Google and facebook to pay for news content), how much of that money is likely to be spent on actual reporting?

I have a sinking feeling that the pundits are here to stay.
Medlar are also gown in the US; I have a friend growing it in Vermont, for instance. It's OK.
> Easy choice. I stay silent.

Agreed same here.

Unfortunately I think the reality will be that male founders may get even more funding than before, which will then lead to a potentially wider gap.

And then the cycle will continue, a misread of the situation as sexism or more accusations of sexism than before will lead to more people staying with the easy choice of being silent.

I'm reminded of that quote, "better to be silent and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove any doubt people have." The same thing is true for investors but with idiot replaced by sexist.
Legal doctrines are rarely invented overnight and what you've said here is demonstrably untrue.

Precedent (regardless of nation of origin) is probably the second most powerful source of laws, right after Natural Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
I'm already subscribed to r/HFY but I mostly read the one-shots so far.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out.
I created a bunch of hoodies based on the books a while ago because I was struggling to find something I wanted to wear, this is a shameless self plug but I suspect many of you will get a kick out of it and I'm not in it for the money. https://www.spreadshirt.com.au/shop/user/304774169/
Github needs to let people set project status to "We Welcome any feedback, including asking how we feel about the latest SJW controversy" or "Comments are disabled, Merge requests may be looked at when possible."
Because that catchphrase started in reaction to Black Lives Matter, and is used largely to signal opposition to the goal of constraining police actions. If people were holding All Lives Matter protests in opposition to police violence of all kinds, I doubt they'd get much flak; instead, they're protesting the idea that black lives matter.
That was terrible advice. It's basically "play the white man", which is a notorious racist trope in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_the_white_man
I have my supervisor and my lead I work under. My lead fortunately is very good and understanding of these things, but he also is kind of like that as well.

My supervisor has absolutely no clue and just wants updates; thats all.
BMW charges extra for a ‘don’t blind other people’ software update
>"puntos limpios"

They are called a "punt verd", green point, and they are all over, but they don't take scrap metal per se. They do take all manner of household waste which should not go to landfill, including small appliances, as well as clothing.
Quite sad people are still pushing this Hunter Biden thing.

By sad, I mean pathetic.
The conflict of interest on their part is obviously massive. And given what we know about asymptomatic transmission and the minor symptoms in many young, healthy people, it could be weeks or longer from the initial infection (wherever it was) until anybody noticing anything unusual.
Keep in mind that this is an article of pre-suasion by the CBC which justifies Canada's current approach of funding government approved journalists and media companies.

The argument is that if someone (government) doesn't fund and help maintain the old model of establishment media (with some left/right division) then the new economic forces will lead to its collapse. The framing being advanced here is that the collapse results in further left/right polarization as we move from objective news reporting towards self-rationalizing and subjective news analysis because that's what drives attention and clicks. This is a false framing in my opinion and only serves as a justification to protect establishment narratives using government money.

Instead I would suggest that: is that the collapse of current media leaves us with a polarization between establishment/non-establishment media narratives also. It's also possible to argue (but that's not my goal here) that non/establishment polarization is greater or more threatening (to who) then the left/right polarization.

The manifestation of this change is much more holistically represented in US politics by putting the typical voting blocs on a political compass map and plotting the line separating Rep/Dem for 2014 vs November 2020. Note that the shift is axial. I think this a more useful (productive) example than the proposed capitol riots (Jan6th) example or Antifa suggested by others. The axial shift is correlated with a different dimension of disagreement in the common zeitgeist.

So some questions worth asking are:
- Is this ok? The days of yellow journalism DID have some of the highest literacy rates in the USA.
- Are you ok with a system where the government gives out financing at will to journalists/media and you may have to take them to court to get a press pass? ...like Canada?
- Were we ever really objective? Should we still strive to distinguish the objective from the subjective?
- Not everyone learns these words in school. Some learn (incorrectly, in my opinion) that there's a moral connotation to it. How can we do better at this?
- Is it worse to lose "objectivity" in reporting or to purport to to be when we really aren't?
Note that the initial outbreak in USA was also covered up.
The subtext of this entire conversation is that you'll never be able to talk "freely" in front of subordinates, so you need to either pine for yesteryear or take another look at your power dynamics.
Please don't take HN threads further into gender flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
India Beats China at Vaccine Diplomacy
I think that would be incredibly difficult, but it would heavily depend on the level of "bootstrapping" we would want to target and the degree of communication and coordination assumed. Modern civilization is a product of increasingly specialized and finely coordinated effort. The system is more powerful, yet more fragile.
This is a very relevant article to everyone in business. Men and women.

I wouldn’t say this publicly and am saying it here due to a reasonable amount of anonymity (that’s a symptom of the problem).

There are behaviours that are universally toxic and destructive. Sexual abuse, sexual objectification, violence, etc.

These are all behaviours, generally, more commonly found in males. I think a lot of males have understood this and over corrected. This over correction “may” now be going too far.

Little is said about toxic behaviour more commonly associated with women:

Gaslighting, manipulation through victimisation, sexual suggestion for preferential treatment, gossiping, etc.

I think education needs to start early in school about what’s not acceptable.

I have a feeling that’s going to start happening once society realises that focusing only on male behaviour is also to the detriment of women.
That's an amazing tool, never heard of it before, glad I ran across this.

Did you ever get a Mac? I see from the page that it's now in Homebrew.
Most people in America would not have any money for food or shelter if they missed just one paycheck. When the option is between pissing in a bottle and becoming homeless, most people will piss in the bottle. That's a choice people shouldn't have to make.
Thomas Sowell: Tragic Optimist
Listening on a port (running as a server) requires that the network interface remains up at all times, consuming more battery, than a client interface where the network interface can be turned off (or put into low power mode) until the next poll event occurs.
> When would I want submodules?

When you have library that is useful to more than one project, but not popular enough to have its own package on multiple package managers. Then the easiest way to reference a specific version of the library is to submodule it.
Sure, and there's plenty of men who don't speak up often enough. But knowing the societal trends helps me recognize problems and correct them.
Please don't take HN threads further into gender flamewar hell. Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and remember that this guideline:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

...applies to articles too.
You are both right; there is a ramp-up, but indeed you pay even if you're making nothing.
> There should be some way to regulate the news media, no?

To what end? The Fairness Doctrine was little more than a method by which powerful people within the government could service their own vendettas against conservative radio hosts, executed through FCC licensure agreements.

Everything is IP-networked now, and there's no FCC licensure for publishing on the internet so a bloody-minded focus on returning to the glory days of the Fairness Doctrine is really just fighting the last war. Oh and it's effectively government-compelled speech, AKA a blatant and egregious violation of the First Amendment without even the paper thin justification of public-owned airwaves.
> Unless they started commanding to destroy samples, and sharing sequences of captured bats after the pandemic started.

Which is exactly what they started doing back in February (2020). The two labs in Wuhan were ordered to destroy all samples they had. So even if the theory were to turn out to be the most likely origin, we'd have no way to find out for sure.
The other fun use case related to trains is tons of subscribers on a moving train doing handoffs between towers. Ideally everyone would use the train's wifi, but that rarely happens because the service is shit. Instead you likely have gigantic traffic hitting the MME trying to detach and reattach phones... and then everyone moves out of the new tower's service area... so on and so forth. Hopefully the 5G core's separation of some of MME's responsibilities will help this scenario.
Sometimes events with a non-1.0 probability do occur.
T-Mobilitat is coming. Budgetary issues have slowed its implementation.
Lol his previous post was from 2006 ("CSS Still sucks" - about which I partly agree with some of his points but not overall - I think it did wonders for the web and I use it a lot to customise sites so they don't piss me off with their bloated designs).

Nice project, but reading a paper from the wall doesn't seem very comfortable.

PS: This screen is ridiculously expensive but you can get pretty nice 12" ones for 200 bucks from waveshare. Even with a 3-color option (black/white/red). Someone also did this with a 7" full colour one recently. Which looked amazing, if you have very good eyes :P Those full colour ones cost only 70 bucks by the way, though getting one is a problem in itself.
Perfect timing. I know Objective-C (my favorite), C/C++, and Python, and Ruby well. Starting to learn Perl (due to a new job) but I also want to learn Rust.
>Unless they started commanding to destroy samples, and sharing sequences of captured bats after the pandemic started.

The pandemic started months after first escape, and the WIV shares research findings internationally. By the time the pandemic was detected, it was way too late to destroy samples, months already went by. And that's assuming the escape happened as soon as the samples reached the WIV, which is very generous.

>All experts agree that SARS-COV-2 is extremely adapted to human infection. Like it appeared out of nowhere, not the gradual result of a natural spill-over. To pose: "It could have been even more infectious" as an argument against gain-of-function is not very strong. And if we agree that China did not deliberately release a finished product, it would be weird to see optimal adaptivity.

It is now, but it wasn't at first zoonosis. It took months for the virus to ramp up to an epidemic, whereas clearly the current iteration of the virus can do so much faster especially in dirty environments. Besides, the virus is still, one year in, nowhere near maximum adaptivity, with significantly more infectious variants still appearing. It's not that it could have been more infectious, is that it now is significantly more infections. As far as "deliberately releasing a finished product", there is no reason for it to matter - the last iteration of a given strain will be subject to experimentation for a long time.

Moreso, SARS-CoV-2 clearly has an insanely high potential for zoonosis, as we've seen it infect an incredibly large cross section of animals. This is not what you would expect from a virus that previously was only ever in one species and that was engineered to be specifically adapted to humans only.

>Gain-of-function does not create obvious marker. It is known possible to increase GoF of coronavirus using techniques that produce no markers at all. It is also tying it too closely to engineered bioweapons (vanilla SARS-COV is a bioweapon itself, even if collected from civet cats by terrorists), because the lab leak could also have been from a collected sample and accidental escape. There is no genetic engineering there at all.

You're stretching the definition of bioweapon way beyond any reasonable definition. Both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 make really poor bioweapons, many naturally occuring viruses are far superior. If the lab leak was from a collected sample that accidentally escaped, you would again expect it to be of known origin - China could point to a specific source and say "Hey, we found it, it comes from here!", and likely collaborators would know about it. Additonally, if it came from GoF, you would expect it to find and expend single-base-pair mutations with a high impact on pathogenicity already, yet we still had many crop up.
> It's vastly easier to just start erring on the side of "You're all just sexist pigs!"

So if we lived in a world were the concept of sexism was not as well developed as it is now, at least here in the US, you wouldn't have this internal conflict? Is this not enough reason to not engage in discussion and encourage others (presumably women) not to engage in behavior that keeps sexism at the very forefront of thought?
> The point here is you can't talk to minority groups about anything these days, if you are white.

I don't think that these universal sort of statements are anywhere near universally accurate.

There has certainly been a shift about what is an acceptable public topic lately, but "anything" is certainly false.
> About the same %, i think. The only difference is russian language can absorb almost anything, applying usual rules - so newly imported words are feeling native almost immediately

That's probably it: it's not the origin of English's vocabulary that makes it difficult, but its bad habit of not adapting borrowed words to conform to the English system.

If English speakers would rework spellings and plurals to match English when borrowing a word, it would be a lot easier for everyone almost all the time (the only exception I can think of is the rare situation (of questionable utility) where an English speaker can recognize a borrowed word in its foreign context).
You're right, connections is everything and right now the business network is partitioned along the male-female line for reasons described above. It would be a monumental effort, if possible at all, to bridge this gap. Probably no less effort if I tried to blend in with english aristocracy.

However I believe you can climb the wealth ladder by leveraging your status. For example, you could start a one-person firm that builds or rebrands sites for clients and advertise your firm on linkedin. It'll go viral very quickly: people there will be retweeting your posts because your case fits the narrative.