skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well today is the anniversary
Problem not solved. The issue here is the huge amount of power to control online speech that these few companies have gained, with basically no oversight.
Suggesting that people who don't like it should just use something else, doesn't actually address this issue.
Who said the poster benefitted from such a system from such a system in the first place? What makes you think he or she doesn't hold the idea that paying more taxes than a 1920s farmer is bad is just being opportunistic? Just because someone lives under a certain set of laws does not mean that they agree with or benefit from them.
Is going to the toilet worth your time? Or would you pay someone to do it for you?
In some cases, yes (if there are other runnable threads on this CPU's queue).
Possibly because the filter was updated/refined in preparation for more traffic and new potentially prohibited results, and during that update process the geographic range of the filter was accidentally set to be worldwide.
That'll be a fun one to throw at my kooky aunt, who insists that pasta in America gives her problems, but the stuff in Italy does not. She thinks it's GMO. I told her "GMO wheat" isn't even a thing.

> As of 2020, no GM wheat is grown commercially, although many field tests have been conducted, with one wheat variety, Bioceres HB4, obtaining regulatory approval from the Argentinian government.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_wheat

https://grainstorm.com/blogs/blog/is-wheat-genetically-modif....
I said should and, if you haven't noticed, the things people have often fought hardest for are changes to society that increase benefits to the people living in them that don't currently enjoy such benefits.
Once it is granted that the objects and their detectable properties are real, and not illusions, there are really only a few possibilities.

1) Advanced and highly secretive technology developed by some government.
2) The same, but by a group within our own government, but off-budget and highly secret (think NSA in the bad old days when it didn't officially exist).
3) The same, but by a non-governmental group of industrialists or similar, but still terrestrial.
4) Aliens

Given the occurrence of these phenomena around military deployments, bases, and nuclear facilities, my money's on #1.

Defaulting to aliens seems attractive to those who presume the technology is too advanced, seemingly violating the laws of physics, and thus an exotic explanation is required. This is illogical.

If the objects are real, and (big) if they are violating the laws of physics as we know them, that means that our understanding of physics needs to be revised. Physics is physics. Explaining it as "aliens" doesn't explain anything. If the physics is wrong (or rather, incomplete, which we already know is the case), then there is no reason to presume that some terrestrial group would be incapable of making and leveraging discoveries that would enable it to create these craft/drones.

We are not lacking in historical examples of tremendous technical advances far outpacing the current understanding. Germany, during WWII, made tremendous advances with the jet engine and in rocketry, even in robotic analog guidance systems, that shocked the scientists in the US. To this day, much of what we acquired with Operation Paperclip is still classified. Why? I'm not going to speculate, but there must be a reason we still don't know what all was acquired from the Germans by the US and Russia.

The same thing could happen again. If new physical principles were, at some point, discovered, leveraged, and developed by some group (governmental or otherwise), they have had quite a few decades to improve on it. Think about how far technology and materials science has come in the public arena in the last 50 years. Add in some exotic discoveries, and some group with the resources to leverage them, and a terrestrial explanation becomes quite plausible. No aliens required.
> Remote work isn't rising.

It doubled in the ten years prior to the pandemic. I will be very surprised if some of the changes since haven’t stuck.
Claiming it's true is a huge leap. What if it isn't?

But more importantly, truth doesn't absolve you of your personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions. This means paying attention to their results and changing your behaviors if you don't like what happens in response. Your intentions and beliefs are less important than your actions and their results. If the way you are expressing something has results you don't like, you should change the way you're expressing it. I'll stand by that assertion whether the thing you're saying is true or not.

And let's be very clear here: 1) The lab leak hypothesis has no evidence. The best it has is a lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. 2) Resolving the question either direction will not change any actions you take in the future. 3) Media discussion of the hypothesis does not resolve it nor provide you with any reason to change your actions.

What is the actual value in discussing the hypothesis as if it's a matter of public import? What public need is being addressed by a media circus? Are you happy with the results of the way the question is being treated in public?

I'm not. So I'm advocating we change the discussion to reduce harm.
From:

https://sec.report/Form/S-1

"SEC Form S-1 is a registration filing form for companies to complete registration of securities offering under the Securities Act of 1933 [pdf] (see also, 15 USC Ch. 2A, Part 77. This act, also known as the Truth in Securites Act was inacted to bring greater transparency to securities. Through form S-1, companies offering securites are required to disclose a description of the company’s properties and business; a description of the security being offered; information about management running the company and financial statements that have been certified by independent accountants."

I would guess that the "certified by independent accountants" part is what would cause scammers problems. So how many decades will it take the USA government to close this SPAC loophole? Our government is so slow! (but it has a long memory, and judging by the above it can't spell).
If it was indeed illegal, then Trump should be taken to court for it. If convicted, the judge then has the opportunity to impose specific social media restrictions if, in their judgement, it is proportionate and warranted.

Surely this is fairer than the extrajudicial punishments from these social media giants?

(And this isn't a partisan opinion - I say this as a leftist who despises Trump and his politics.)
This is plausibly a filter intended for Chinese IP addresses that was accidentally applied to all searches regardless of geographic location.
I embraced not finishing a book years ago and have never looked back. I find being open to the idea of letting perfect not be the enemy of good enough, and letting take a walk stand in for going for a run, and reading half a book stand in for reading it in its entirety.
I mean he’s dead and that’s an ok result for the police, being guilty or not doesn’t really matter. And we’ll never know if this ruling would be sufficient because again, he’s dead.
"global surveillance by profit-seeking corporations" is a string of scary words, but gossip is much more likely to cause the average person clear, tangible harm. Just pointing out that digital tracking is creepy doesn't do much to convince most people to inconvenience themselves at all.
I don't think the plan is to get rid of data collection and then allow it, we ban it moving forward
I'm not sure I get your point. It's more or less what I said, it isn't using real OS threads but it is doing something similar to green threads. It isn't true multithreading in the sense that it doesn't spawn an OS thread but it spawns lightweight (or green or simulated) threads with their own VM.
Trump Suspended from Facebook for 2 Years
Don’t forget Nissan’s Ghosn!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/business/carlos-ghosn-nissan-...
I think these concerns still need to be translated into real world repercussions before the average person is convinced. Right now it is certainly creepy, but does it really have a negative impact on my life for a company to know these things?
It wasn't a coup attempt, it was a protest that became a riot.

All this talk of a coup is really quite silly - you can't just break into the Capitol and then start running the country, somehow.

If he did indeed incite a riot (and I personally think he likely did, to some extent), then that is a matter for the actual courts - not the kangaroo courts of the social media giants.

The wider principle here isn't even about Trump really, it's about how much the power of online censorship has become concentrated into a handful of mostly unaccountable companies.
You could just as easily point to Russia as the root cause, since they are providing a home for this.
They're not technically faulty, just incomplete. Everyone has different, ephemeral needs for purchasing and stocking; as long as your footprint matches what's on the invoice you're fine.

It's been a decade since I've had a problem with a buggy footprint from a default library (contrasted with quite a few buggy footprints I made myself). But just two weeks ago I had a board problem because my selected LED had a slightly different leadframe and pad geometry than the library version. (A '3030' package, comparable to offerings from Cree and Lite-on and Lumileds and - I thought - my LCSC-sourced Everbright.) The stock library footprint was produced in 2016 for a nominally equivalent package from a different manufacturer. When I used one part number in Kicad and bought a different part number, it's obviously my fault. If I worked at a company of scale instead of a company of 20 I'd not be selecting random LCSC part numbers, but that's more so that they'd be confident in their ability to actually buy the thing than because they distrust the stock libraries.
Not for me presently.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tank+man&ia=images&iax=images

http://web.archive.org/web/20210604211040/https://duckduckgo...
Yeah, unfortunately there are still some sharp edges. Was there a particular reason you decided to use the unreleased version of Phoenix 1.6 instead of using the current version of phx_gen_auth (from https://github.com/aaronrenner/phx_gen_auth/)? There's a decent bit of documentation there too.

I haven't used guardian (not a fan of JWT) so I can't comment on it.
Thanks for sharing this link
Saying the increased effort by law enforcement is “useless” is unfounded.

Note you are misquoting me: my comment: *"..."treating this like terrorism" is useless"

The right sort of the law enforcement action might be useful. But "treating this like terrorism" is just escalating penalties, threats and so-forth, which doesn't make sense for a very conventional property crime.
How the Dutch are facing up to their colonial past
Indian Woman Claims to Be 124, Two Years Older Than Oldest-Ever Jeanne Calment
> Web Users Should Disable Scripting Languages in Their Browsers

Oh what could have been.
You do the same thing:

(let [a (take 5 (range))]
(let [{:keys [b c d] :or {d 10 b 20 c 30}} {:c 50 :d 100}]
(let [[e f g & h] ["a" "b" "c" "d" "e"]]
(let [_ (println "I was here!")]
(let [foo 12]
(let [bar (+ foo 100)]
[a b c d e f g h foo bar]))))))

And now you can simply evaluate it using variable substitution again.

The difference is that when you say `(let [a 10])` the variable `a` is a constant now, you can effectively replace all occurrence of it within the scope by `10`, and you can do this at compile time.

That's why people say the symbol `a` is bound to the value 10, and not the variable `a` points to the value 10.

Effectively you cannot change `a` within the scope anymore, all use of `a` in that scope will be equal, and so within that scope you can change their ordering freely.

What I think is confusing you here is that `let` gives you syntax sugar so all the scopes are flattened, but each new binding pair is actually inside a nested scope, and so `a` is still immutable. In this case, it matters almost never, but as I showed, it still can, because in an imperative language you could still try to mutate the variable even in the same expression, and that is impossible to do in Clojure.
I get the anger about Sidewalk, but this is absolutely not a thing you can do with it.

Sidewalk isn’t a wifi network that people can just connect to, it’s a LoRa radio. A low bandwidth, long range protocol. Devices connecting need to be pre-registered with Amazon, and can only communicate via an endpoint in AWS.

Even if someone somehow created a device for arbitrary web browsing via Sidewall, and put up with the incredibly slow connection speed, combined with strict limits on how much bandwidth can be consumed, all they get is a VPN immediately traceable to their AWS account.
Wasnt here on hn someone who created a bot able to randomly like messages on FB, search for nonsense on Google, post random tweets on twitter etc, spoofs GPS etc. Would love to use something like that
Here's an article about it:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8v9m/bing-censors-tank-man

Makes me wonder what other pitfalls there are to using DDG.
Presumably we want companies to be able to use user data to improve their product, so that's one thing we'd have to legislate around.
An example to support my thought would be a communist democracies becoming more capitalist over time. Unfortunately I believe communist regimes have been predominantly authoritarian, so I don't have any good examples. I believe there aren't any good counter examples either tho, so it's anyone's guess.
> MIT brought the charges of breaking and entering that led to Swartz’s arrest

That's because they didn't know who it was that was doing it. Their main purpose in getting the police involved was to find out.

> Many urged MIT to advocate to not prosecute and MIT chose not to.

Yes, that's a fair point (and IIRC the Abelson report makes a similar point), and it was an overstatement on my part to say that MIT asked that no further action be taken. (I believe JSTOR did, though.)

However, that's still very different from saying that MIT (or JSTOR) "lobbied the feds to pursue Swartz", which is what the post I was originally responding to claimed. Neither MIT nor JSTOR did any such thing.

> Spinning this like MIT wasn’t responsible or JSTOR wasn’t responsible is so mealymouthed.

I don't think either MIT or JSTOR were responsible for "pursuing" Swartz. They certainly weren't responsible for threatening him with decades in jail. That was the federal prosecutor.

One could argue that MIT was "responsible" because they didn't work harder to persuade the feds not to pursue Swartz. But that could just as easily have been because they couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that a federal prosecutor would go so overboard until after it had actually happened, at which point it was too late.

> all they needed to do was say “hey don’t do that”

It's not at all clear to me that that would have made a difference, given the attitude of the federal prosecutor. That's not to say MIT shouldn't have done it (I think they should have), but it's also not an argument, IMO, for MIT being responsible for what happened to Swartz. Prosecutorial overreach is the responsibility of the prosecutor--and of the government that empowers the prosecutor, and ultimately of all of us citizens who empower the government.
It sounds like Clojure just isn't your cup of tea. Both of those problems exist in every other language I've ever used.
Agreed, as far as I can see, it was a calculated risk that companies would abuse it. Better to just suck it up and hope for public outrage in some of the more despicable cases, which is just what happened here.
Nah, they’re pretty much the same meaning.
They have a full on Public Cloud available but their main business is still selling dedicated servers. This makes them a competitor to AWS.
You are another one of those that want no privacy for anyone...
Are there any games similar to Cyberpunk 2077 or the Witcher that use Unreal Engine? I assume game companies are not making their own engines for fun.
That rant was both informative and entertaining! Thank you!
I really really wish that there was a norm of uploading code at the same time as the paper. The number of "code coming soon!" buttons on these sorts of sites (oftentimes several years in the past) is far too high. If you can't play around with the model, how can you tell the level of cherry-picking that the method has?
The 7th and 9th result are correct.
No, it is a "bad assumption about the world" problem.
Klarna May 27 incident report
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo...

> Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

> The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
All I can say is that this line of thinking makes me feel that we might be in for a bleak future indeed.
Meh, if it's that small, then it's wasteful to start setting up infra around PagerDuty or New Relic or Slack or what not.

That would come later if the whole thing takes off.
Maybe it's changed over time since this was posted, but right now the top result for "tank man" on DDG is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

and though the image searches do show a bunch of other things (all including "tank man" in the name at least), they _do_ also include the iconic photo at least once:

http://www.maryscullyreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/...

which I did not see in the bing results...
What would that achieve? Suddenly people see the light and no longer believe there is a conspiracy? Seems rather unlikely to me.
We will definitely have digitally-created stars as a separate medium. We have for a long time had animated characters who don't speak. They still involve intensive human direction to create them, but they don't have human form or human voice. They're still plenty entertaining.

They get to do things that humans can't do. They can entertain in entirely novel ways. Using them as a substitute for human actors is kinda the faster-horses-not-cars of movies.

We use CGI characters for inhuman effects, but I think it's often not very effective. I don't care for most superhero movies because I don't really care about watching CGIs punch CGIs harder than human actors could do. There aren't any stakes; there's no dramatic risk. I'd rather watch a martial arts movie, which is limited by what humans are capable of.

That's still something we're learning. Part of what made the Lord of the Rings films more interesting than the Hobbit follow-ons was that the latter used more practical effects. New Zealand was a big star in LotR; Hobbit used more CGI backgrounds. Audiences felt the sense of place.

We'll improve the tech so that it seems even more realistic. The new technology used in The Mandalorian is really exciting (though I'd be curious to see how it played on a big screen). But it was at its best when it made up very real-world seeming worlds, while animation uses digital worlds in totally unrealistic and even more exciting ways.

So I'm expecting that we'll continue to have practical effects in the best movies starring humans, and continue to have human stars. But we're still waiting for the first mega-hit CGI star who can do whatever magic it is Robert Downey Jr. does. When they can catch that, RDJ may well be out of a job -- not replaced, but the entire enterprise gone.
Indeed -- at least in English. Continental Europe is a bit more sensible, IMO ;-).
No, I'm saying the great famine is no more Britain's fault than the opium wars are the Chinese people's fault.
Every day millions of South Africans walk in the street and don’t die.
The touristy areas are safer than elsewhere. There isn’t just random non stop killing in the streets.
Can you give me a list? I actually do know of a few master planned communities like that but they number in the dozens nationwide and most are special purpose retirement communities. I've yet to see a person claim that it is impossible to buy a non-HOA home anywhere in commuting distance of their job actually name such a place. I'm pretty confident they don't actually exist and this is a way of people who want to have their cake and eat it too to throw a tantrum that they can't move into a neighborhood where everyone but them are bound by an HOA. I don't know where you live but if it is in the US and you're not retired, I'm fairly confident that I could find a non-HOA property that exists in your area. I've issued this challenge hundreds of times and have had zero people successfully name such a place. What usually happens is they come up with other disqualifiers like "That's a bad school district", "That's a high crime area" or "I don't like the style of houses there", which are reasonable criteria but is not the same thing as it being impossible to find a house not in an HOA.

And of course there are the other options: buy land and build on it, or move somewhere else. But people feel entitled to force themselves on others without their consent. Every owner in an HOA consented to being in the HOA. Prohibiting them from forming an HOA of consenting owners is you taking away their ability to consent.
Microsoft says it was due to an accidental human error.

https://twitter.com/josephfcox/status/1400913178125553665?s=...
Microsoft Bing concerned over lack of image results for Tiananmen 'tank man'
This brings back memories. Does it still work?
It seems to me like the issue here is that reasonable people disagree on where the boundary between work misconduct and criminal liability is, and that computers being involved are pushing that to the forefront in these kinds of cases.
2 Thoughts FWIW:

1: Counseling is super helpful in dealing with emotions. I think everyone should see a counselor for at least a little while in their lives. Do not let any stigma stop you. No one really teaches you how to deal with depression and disappointment, but counseling helps you sort it out.

2: Identity issues of who you perceive yourself to be vs. what the world says you should be are a real source of discouragement when they don't match. Accept who you are and then strive for who you want to be. That's really all anyone can do.
A lot of terms in China only get censored around the sensitive dates. Or, to put it differently, around the time that there is a sensitive date (PRC anniversary, CCP anniversary, June 4 etc) there seems to a burst of newly-censored terms. Because there is no official list of banned terms, this is done proactively by censors in the tech companies who want to avoid a potential warning from the government or pile-on from nationalist netizens.

It's possible that the English term "tank man" wasn't censored on Bing image search in China before, but it is now. Over there the Tiananmen massacre is usually referred to as the June 4 incident, so it's usually the characters 六四 (6 and 4) that are censored in search results. Because Bing isn't a very popular website in China, it might be that "tank man" slipped through until now.
Would guess it would be complicated and difficult to update the kernel to support something like that. Not sure Linus would entertain PRs for custom boards that do something like that. Would think it would need to be an industry wide push for that. But just speculation..
You seem to be suggesting that working animals are forced labor. Does that include all the working dogs such as police, rescue, military, and comfort dogs?

The opposite of heroic is cowardly and it perfectly describes people that try to silence opposing opinions.
We use it at Pepsi eConmerce for multiple teams. In fact all of our newer backend projects use it.
Props to the devs for keeping this site up for so long.
What do you think about Golang's concurrency patterns?