skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The former head of the Motion Picture Association of America was, before that, a 36-year congressman holding several leadership positions. His annual compensation at the MPAA peaked at $3.9 million.

https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/chris-dodd-mpaa-compe...

What do *you* have to offer?

I don't think this is a shallow or overly cynical dismissal. I think this is the core issue: this broken lobbying system, and the intellectual property industry's outstandingly effective methods for co-opting it. No one's going to solve IP laws until something changes about the fact that Disney's lawyers have more impact in government than all the rest of the democracy. The IP law problems reduce to a broader and more intractable political problem.
Disasters, Ugly and Cute
I did not mean that if they lost the arbitration that they would lose $10K or $25K.

In my theoretical example, let's say Disney slapped this person with a DMCA for the Loki look. Instead of just sending the DMCA request, they would also need to put $10,000 in escrow, and then open a meeting with an arbitrator for review.

The arbitrator's job would not be to assess it's validity, but would be to only determine whether the DMCA was frivolous or not. If the arbitrator rules it's frivolous, the $10,000 gets sent to the person pretending to be Loki. If the arbitrator rules not frivolous, the $10,000 that Disney put in escrow gets returned and it plays out like a normal DMCA.

The whole point is just that Disney, or the person filing the request, would be putting $10,000 on the line with the risk the arbitrator could rule it frivolous. If Disney disagrees, they can open a full lawsuit against the person, but that's a big risk on both sides that could still have abuse.

I'm just spitting out ideas. Maybe something like this could get refinement.
> Nobody is forcing anybody to house people for free. Sure, you can’t evict, but you can sell your property and let that be someone else’s problem.

This seems pretty disingenuous. On the surface level it's obviously true, but that same logic applies to anything that people are obligated to do.

Like, I'm not forced to wear a seatbelt, but if I commute an hour-and-a-half from the boonies to my business each day, there's no reasonable alternative for the average person that doesn't completely uproot their life. I could definitely move to a new house or start up a new business closer to home, but I imagine most reasonable folks would say "Yeah, you kind of have to just wear your seatbelt now".
I also have difficulties to find good iOS app for Catholic. Nah. It's very hard for me to find any downloadable version of Catholic publications.

Anyway, that's too bad that you received that hostility. I have 2 mormon friends in my high school. They are chill and fun to hang-out with. They often invited me to join their church, but I can reject without making it a big issue.
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
When I'm stuck a day
That's gray
And lonely
I just stick out my chin
And grin
And say
Oh
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So you gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So you gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!
The Cat Question is an illustrative example of where animal rights and environmentalism diverge.

It's the same same story in Australia. I had multiple vocally Green neighbors in a vocally Green suburb of Melbourne who let their cats have free rein. The mutilated bird carcasses that littered the area were testament to that misguided liberty. Around election time the Greens mailers even included "protecting our pets" as one of its platform items, while at the same time advising voters to rank parties with actual environmental policies, such as the socialists, nearly last.
"If things go as planned, this may become a paid, ad-free, zero-tracking search engine."

In 1998 when Google's founders announced their search engine they claimed it would be less commercial, more academic, more transparent and they would avoid the influence of advertising. Did things "go as planned." Not even close. What is the lesson here.

Meanwhile, every search submitted during the "beta" period is subject to none of those limitations.

"So, if I am not satisfied with Brave's result, Google's result is on the same page, or just one click away."

Brave is not the first to do that. Check out Gigablast, for example. If I am not mistaken, they also claim to use an "independent index". At least, they provide the source to a crawler and server.^1 That is what people should be excited about. Not Gigablast per se but the idea of an open source search engine that anyone can run. searx is another project worth looking at.^2

How many ways are results promoted and demoted; what are the factors used. Are these search engines that comenters are recommending in this thread transparent. (Making promises on a blog is not "transparency" IMO.) Where is the source code. What are the various server settings that alternatives like Google, DDG, Brave, Startpage, etc. never provide to users. This stuff should matter, yet the discussion of search engines always seems to devolve into personal usage anecdotes and "search shortcuts". Every user has different needs and preferences.

There are many knobs in web search that advertising-supporting tech companies providing "search engine" websites will never let users twiddle. The source code for those servers is not public.

1. To get an idea of type of settings users of popular search engines are not being allowed to control:

(Scroll down to "SEARCH CONTROLS")
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gigablast/open-source-sear...

2. https://github.com/searx/searx

For a current list of searx public instances

curl https://searx.space/data/instances.json|grep -Eo '(A\+", .[^"]*.{4}[^"]*)'|cut -d/ -f5|uniq|sed 's>.*>https://&>'
Do you expect that the Nazis were uniquely evil? What trends in German society made them 'evil' that we lack?

Ordinary people are capable of great evil when they limit their sphere of empathy.
I was told to subscribe to Disney+ by a family member.

They have a whole section on Star Wars. It has everything, except the first Star Wars?

That said, you it is very family friendly. If I had children, I might only have Disney+ on my tv.

I guess those at Disney feel their brand is so good, they let their lawyers harass people?

(When I was a kid, my dad took us to Disney Land. It was the only time I saw him enthused over anything. He was shocked at the detail, and cleanliness of the LA park. He told us the Matterhorn will be last because of the line. At 10 minutes to closing they th old us to come back tomorrow. I've been meaning to go back. I still remember my first view of the park, and it was magical.)
I set my important ones for 1030am or 1pm!
Cats are literally the apex predator in New Zealand.
I love this one called Literal Word:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/literal-word/id1439010388

Not sure if they have an a Android version.

Only one translation: NASB.

But fast, clean, with the ability to look up the Lexicon definitions of the original words.

If you give me more of an idea of what you’re looking for I might have other suggestions.
A video being publicly available doesn't mean you have permission to reuse it for free. If you do not have permission to use those videos you are stealing from those creators.
Low-impact racism is nonetheless racism. Saying that white people cannot experience racism is logically and demonstrably incorrect based on the universal definition of the word. There's no magnitude threshold that has to be met, only that the behavior is based on the color of your skin.
There is always a trade-off between the representation of regions, demographic groups, and opinions. Single-member districts are the right solution when regional representation is the most important concern and the representation of various opinions is the least important one. Sufficiently large multimember districts are the opposite.

When it comes to regional representation, the right district size depends on population and mobility. If you live in a rural area, a single-member district probably covers you local area reasonably well. In major cities, the boundaries of electoral districts are often arbitrary and meaningless. If you live in one district, work in another, and use shops and other services in a third, which of the three is most important to you? And what happens if you move to another place within the city?
Well if you weren't going to pay for it in the first place they're not losing anything.
This is remarkably similar to chronic lyme disease.
> what happens is media-companies strong-arm content-hosting companies (YouTube, etc) to let them file informal takedown notices

Disney market cap: $315 billion

Revenue in 2019: $70 billion

Alphabet market cap: $1,700 billion

Revenue in 2019: $162 billion

What manner of "strong-arming" did you have in mind?
That would work... but only if a small creator, you know, sued.

What I'm trying to get at though is that the creator filing the DMCA request should have to put something on the line to show they are operating in good faith, and I believe that something should be larger or smaller depending on the size of that creator.

The arbitrator in the picture is just to determine whether the DMCA has merit, in which case the something is sent back to the DMCA filer and it's a normal DMCA; or if the request does not have merit, in which case the something is sent to the person filed against.
The problem there is that metric basically equates to math at the end of the day, I don't think those are directly comparable. It would be very strange (and new) to have one and only one implementation of an entire class of software, instead of a technical standard with multiple different implementations.
Congressman doesn't care about you or me, but big spenders.
One vote cast in one warehouse doesn't necessarily represent the workforce as a whole.

1. That particular workforce is making above-market wages for their area. They looked at what a union might be able to deliver and decided they didn't want to rock the boat.

2. Any single location voting for union representation knows that there's a good chance management will just shutdown the whole operation. Like Wal-Mart did. Amazon could easily jettison a "troublesome" warehouse and continue doing business. Game-theoretically, it would benefit them as a message to other locations that might be flirting with organizing.

I'm not sure what coercion you're seeing in their new strategy.
I think there's a couple reasons. IRV has been around a lot longer and is used in other countries. (It was first used in Australia in 1893.) In the U.S. it's supported most prominently by FairVote, which seems to be a pretty well-funded organization. (FairVote calls the proposal RCV, and most media follows suit.)

The main proponent of approval voting seems to be the Center for Election Science, which is a pretty small organization, though I think they've gotten a little bigger over the last few years. There's also some STAR voting groups. None of these groups have huge piles of money to spend.

Then there's news organizations (including the NPR story posted here on HN today) promoting RCV/IRV.

On its face, IRV seems pretty straightforward and reasonable. It's problems are complicated and hard to describe. The examples of non-monotonic results where voters can cause their preferred candidate to lose by ranking them too highly are counterintuitive and hard to follow, and I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking: "What? that doesn't make sense. You must have made a mistake somewhere..."

There's also the common sentiments of "this is an emergency we need to fix right now" and "everyone's already on the RCV bandwagon" and "replacing a broken system with a half-broken system is usually politically more feasible than replacing a broken system with a not-broken system" and "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and so on.

There are also criticisms of the other voting systems. Some people are bothered by approval voting's lack of ordered preferences, for instance, and score voting is susceptible to strategic voting where the most extreme rankings have the most influence. STAR voting mitigates that to some extent, but it's not perfect.

I worry that we'll replace FPTP with IRV, find out later that it didn't live up to expectations, and then when voting reform advocates start pushing for something better like approval voting or STAR, the voters will say, "why should we believe you when a bunch of voting reform advocates promised unicorns and rainbows and we got a system that doesn't work any better than FPTP?" And then they'll either say to heck with all this voting theory nonsense and go back to FPTP or just live with IRV. And that's optimistically assuming that our future selves don't just abandon democracy itself as an unworkable idea (and though I reject that premise I have to concede that there's no lack of evidence pointing in that direction).
Lots cheaper, too. :)
It would seem that the rate of depression should be lower in cultures where it's used more. I'm curious about rather existing statistics indicate that.
Wow, thank you for sharing. I think I’ll stick with Google for now because they’ve never done anything morally questionable.
Oh, I agree that in the US, RCV is (unfortunately) often conflated with IRV.

> I've wondered if IRV couldn't be substantially improved by using ... rather than eliminating the candidate with the least first-choice options.

This is exactly the family of RCV systems -- IRV merely defines one implementation by which a winner is selected from a ranked ballot.

Borda count has its own pathologies, too -- the usual cited problem is that it fails independence of irrelevant alternatives.

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

(Further, Borda count fails the majority criterion, namely there are situations where a candidate is the first pick of a majority of the electorate, yet fails to win. Some proponents of Borda count argue this is a feature, not a bug.)

The wiki article for Borda count has a solid table of various voting systems and whether they satisfy various criteria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count#Other_properties
Honey, a browser extension that harvests user data and injects its own affiliate links was acquired by Paypal for $4 Billion.

Publishers are shilling amazon's prime day because they're all amazon affiliates wanting to earn their commission. Similarly, all those "price comparison" and coupon sites are injecting affiliate codes and just redirecting you to the merchant.

I don't see how Brave did something egregious injecting affiliate codes to earn commission from certain vendors, if one of their users signed up for a service. Keep in mind the dominant, alternative browser (Chrome), built by an advertising company, is privacy hostile and trying to use new tracking technology (FLOC) as they phase out cookies. Firefox is kept alive largely by $ paid by Google and seems to be getting worse with each release also. I'd rather see a competitive browser that doesn't have to take $$ from Google to stay alive.
Because the last time the US let a Middle East Country fall into complete chaos it didn't work out very well for the US.

Sadly, the US didn't learn from this and then went and turned Iraq into complete chaos.
I like to think of the pursuit of pleasure as having a critical time dimension for determining if that pleasure is 'bad' or 'good'. Think of this as short-term pleasure (bad or dishonerable) vs long-term pleasure (good or honorable).

This is in contrast to the article which makes the good/bad distinction from a more Stoic perspective: "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much". And as the article goes on to explain, this idea gained traction with Christians through the ideas of Kant and others, who thought the pursuit of pleasure in doing good was not noble in itself. But this is countered by more recent 20th century writers like C.S. Lewis and more recently John Piper who make a point that the pursuit of joy in doing good is noble (see Christian Hedonism: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/christian-hedonism )

But back to the time dimension of seeking what is pleasurable in the short vs. long-term. I've come to the realisation that most good things are the result of pursuing what is pleasurable in the long-term. Short-term vs long-term thinking. Think one-night stand vs lifelong marriage. Or the pleasure of enjoying junk food snacks in the short-term, vs self-discipline to savor desserts only after a meal. Or an example more from the realm of the mind, think watching sitcoms or playing video games vs finding pleasure in the discipline of self-study to pursue a long-term productive project. I see some of these ideas expressed in culture today through fasting apps and similar tools to help people control short-term pleasure impulses and instead pursue better long-term goals that are more beneficial.

Edit - I would just add that I see this more in terms of an economic calculation - people do what is in their best interest, and if you factor in a long-term approach to pleasure, it can help explain the benefits of choosing altruistic behavior over a short-term decision to do something that only pleases oneself. What is best for others usually turns out to be best for oneself in the long-term. A lot of cultural ideas like 'what comes around goes around' or karma, etc all stem from this concept.
The thing that surprises me from those graphs is that 100% strategic voting often led to a better result than 100% honest voting.
We hear a lot about Patent Trolls. We should call this behavior the actions of a Copyright Troll. And we need legislation against both Patent Trolls and Copyright Trolls.
Most of the people are neither heroes nor monsters. The atrocities committed by the Nazis were committed by a minority of the population and ignored or tolerated by the majority of folks like your family.

I am deeply sorry that your family has fallen in line behind evil and hate because they simply cannot tell the difference between evil that tells them what they want to hear and decency that tells them things that make them uncomfortable. For you I hope that their innate quality as human beings enables them someday to see through the con and I hope you continue to love them regardless for the qualities they possess that are good and worthy. I don't hate you and I don't hate your family.
So if I'm not in a union (salaried or hourly) I can do someone a favor or someone can do me a favor.

Union members get "ratted out" by others if they go "above and beyond". There is no flexibility.
I'd argue that current situation hurts small creators way more. From what I've seen, they receive DMCAs much more often than they send them.
A couple things:

* Unions could definitely use better software, but I don't think software can replace their core functionality.

* Many companies whose main product is a seemingly simple mobile app require surprisingly large staffs.

* Are unions actually bloated? The Teamsters for example had 616 regular staff and spending of $209 million in 2019, over a membership of 1.3 million workers. That seems reasonable to me. https://www.unionfacts.com/union/Teamsters (anti-union but nonetheless useful site)

* Unions do lots of things besides electing representatives, voting on issues, and coordinating actions, all of which are big jobs in themselves. This may include contract negotiation, job training, research, organizing, and other things I can't think of right now.

* To focus specifically on organizing for a moment, a union is a coordination problem which takes a lot of work to overcome. Quoting myself from another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24079465):
> The labor organizer's job is to convince the worker, who likely and often rightly fears for her job if she actively and publicly supports the union, that it's still the right thing to do. Not only convince intellectually, but psychologically prepare the worker to stick with the union effort in the face of a concerted effort from the employer to defeat it. To do that the organizer needs to ask the right questions, listen carefully, build trust, and finally push, and potentially do this repeatedly with the same person. It is psychologically demanding and not everyone can do it; I tried and I couldn't. A chatbot cannot convince a factory worker with kids to feed that he needs to stick up for his coworkers who in turn will stick up for him.
I meant lower/middle class people and small businesses wishing to _file_ (not receiving) a DMCA takedown, and thus being subject to the "deposit".

A few years ago, when I was in college, a friend had his art stolen from his website and reused on social media by a mid-sized company. A DMCA takedown solved the issue, but being a poor college student there is no way he could have found $10k lying around to use for takedown, even temporarily.
At some point in his life he did cosplay the disney owned variation of the public concept of loki. But loki in general is definitely not something that disney owns. And just his face without a costume is not disney loki. So this should be immediately rejected on dmca appeal.

Should he have to appeal and enter into a legal battle with one of the most dangerous and well funded legal teams on earth? No. It sucks. But the DMCA we have now probably cannot be improved and the safe harbor provisions are vital to the freedom of the net. Any attempts to change it for the better will just make it worse.

The best thing he can do, what he's done, is try to get wider public coverage of the stupidity in the hope that disney will try to avoid controversy.
So why do you trust the studies now?
Because they agree with what you think?

Have you looked at the one that's been quoted most often? Because they've very very specific to a population of jewish kids in England and Israel.
Wait, how was there not interference with voluntary business dealings?

A renter and a landlord voluntary sign a contract. The renter says "I will give you $XXXX a month for 12 months", and the landlord says "I will provide a livable home for you for the period of 12 months." Both agree: voluntary business dealing.

Now the government comes in and says "Hey renter, you no longer have to fulfill your half of that agreement, but the landlord still does". The government has directly interfered with the voluntary business dealing between the renter and the landlord.

Consider the counterexample: the government comes in and says "Hey landlord, you no longer have to keep the home livable or do repairs, but the renter still needs to pay rent." This would be just as much an interference with voluntary business dealings as what really happened, and everyone seems to agree on this point.
What are you even talking about...?

Literally anyone can run in the Democratic primary, you just have to be registered as a Democrat, which is just filling out a form where there are no wrong answers.

Have you even been following the NYC primary at all? "Ideologically enforced" is hilarious. The difference between, say, the current #1 and #2 candidates Adams and Wiley is basically the difference between Trump and Bernie Sanders, and the the rest are everything in between and then some.

If you think anything is being ideologically enforced in this race, if you think anyone is being "outcast and blockaded" -- I mean, this dude Paperboy Love Prince [1] is actually on the ballot, not even joking -- then quite frankly you're delusional. This isn't Communist China, this is the Democratic Party which is, well, famously a bit of a mess.

I don't know where you live or what news you read, but if you're trying to claim America isn't democratic and open then, ha... you sure picked the wrong race to use as an example! :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperboy_Prince