skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The CIO can resign instead of going to jail. It all depends on how strictly the law gets e forced. If only a few get caught, then it becomes a dishonor to not have "the balls" of just risking it, and you'd not get a new job as CIO if you didn't want to play it out. But if it's guaranteed to get caught, nobody would do it.

Right. Humans don't strictly adjust their behavior according to the game theoretic adjusted risk (penalty × probability). Raising the odds of getting caught tends to work much better than increasing the penalty.

That said, one of the outgrowths from this observation has been Broken Window Theory (that credits a drop in larger crimes to increasing enforcement and speedy mitigation of other - highly visible - minor infractions), which turns out to be more of a just-so story. You mostly have to increase the odds of getting caught for the crimes you are most interested in deterring rather than something else.
Playing Factorio on mobile would be amazing.

But could something like this run Cyberpunk 2077 decently?
Just quick context on the squid bit: it wasn’t Tony’s crew (zero point zero productions), it was the combination of local fixers/boat folks who wanted to make it look like they caught fish.
I agree with you on restraints on natural monopolies. That should come in the form of limiting their anti-competitive behavior and probably also harvesting user data unconsentually for profit.

But regarding limiting these companies from being able to decide which speech they don't want to host: I don't think you've thought this out fully.

What speech should they be forced to host? Art? Disinformation? Propaganda? Porn? Spam? Terrorism? For illegal speech: Whose laws should they be forced to obey?
There is a category of companies that doesn't try to be a content arbiter. Common carriers, utilities, other services that have an obligation to contract.

Of course the "contract" with SNPs is that you "pay" with your eyeballs falling on adverts, and the ads in turn don't want to be anything like common carriers. So turning any web service into something like a common carrier would have interesting knock-on effects.
The search apparatus is exactly the target of those trying to implement censorship.

Six months ago saying covid-19 originated in a lab was verboten on many platforms - saying it on facebook or YouTube would get you called a purveyor of misinformation and the content deleted and and your account at risk.

Suddenly it turns out the people involved at the government level funded the work exactly, and they worked with these companies to define what was misinformation, and suddenly Jon Stewart is making jokes about it and these companies allow it to be talked about again.

If you don’t understand how dangerous the platforms that house our public speech banning some speech based on “misinformation” is you aren’t paying any attention. They have set up their systems to detect/downrank/remove arbitrary content and that will be used for political reasons - it already has been and quite recently.

We live in dangerous times and a lot of people are oblivious.
Now Live in the Google Chrome Store
Arrow Boost is an Ai Browser Extension that makes Facebook Ads work.
What does Arrow Boost do? It makes sure your Boosted posts are seen by the right people. How does it do that? Magic! OK, it’s actually artificial intelligence that was built by crazy talented developers and experts in machine learning. The point is, it works. Like magic. Free Downloads now on the Chrome Store!
It isn't a free lunch, because the $300 is going towards the start-up cost of the future tax-base.

The cost to raise a child is estimated to be about $250,000, and the average amount a person will pay in taxes is $340,000.

By my calculation that is a $90,000 "free lunch" to society with the investment to make that largely born by the parent. The people actually getting the "free lunch" are those who don't have children, but benefit from the investment made by parents.
The intent is to reveal your linguistic hypochondria, which appears to be working very well.
> For C++, the system package manager (yum, apt, pacman) seems sufficient to install most anything I've ever needed

The system package manager installs globally and prefers dynamic linking. This makes it generally impossible to distribute software reliably without packaging it for the system package manager being used. Dependencies should be local to the project and prefer static linking to avoid deployment/distribution errors.
> there is power in the insinuation that you have more evidence than you actually have

This is true and there is power in all manners of things, including very abusive, immoral and possibly illegal things; there is a lot of power in threatening physical (or psychological) violence to people, for example.

I guess the question is about which usage of power we should (ideally) endorse as a society as a matter of course .
> What's the blocker here?

Human nature, apparently. Just about all large-scale human activities at the moment are predicated on exponential growth. We're nowhere near achieving a long-term stable steady-state here on earth. The odds of achieving that in a vastly more hostile environment are even lower.
My point is 0.0000006% of companies are governmental. In the context of the discussion, nobody is even thinking of those. So, “private” as a qualifier is hot air. It sounds ignorant to me.
> In fact, your argument is really in favor of the ideology that the strongest deserve to rule the weak.

That's kind of irrelevant. Ideologies are great, manipulative things, seizing every argument and foothold they can to support themselves. Saying “nobody actually exists” counters “the strongest deserve to rule the weak” quite nicely, but it isn't true; arguing “people really exist” is an argument in favour of that ideology, but that doesn't make it false.

The idea of God-given rights has, historically, been the major justification behind “the strongest deserve to rule the weak”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings Does that make you less inclined to believe it? (The answer should be no.)

Ignore manipulative, harmful ideologies until you can shun or counter them. If the Evil Ideology monopolises certain truths, and is the only set of philosophy (that purports to be) grounded in those truths, it seems to all but philosophers like the Evil Ideology is a consequence of those truths.
It's not really culture. It's a small minority of radical extremists who get their own way repeatedly by threatening meltdowns out of all proportion to the severity of the problem, and emotionally manipulating their own managers ("you're a bad person if you don't do this"). And they do it again and again, until the organization starts to collapse and becomes a mere tool for their political agendas.

The best way to push back on this is not some p2p techno fix. It's to systematically start firing anyone in an organization who demands the moral cleansing of customers or colleagues.
We've had Photoshop for 3 decades and airbrushing for even longer and it's had far-reaching impacts across society... no one is really immune to it because it isn't obvious and it has arguably poisoned realistic ideals around body image.

IMO we need to mandate disclosures around deepfakes. It's impossible on a peer-to-peer level, but commercially it should be clearly disclosed.
The “public square” is free for speaking because it belongs to everybody.

As long as a speech is said in a private place (e.gr. Google’s servers, facebook’s…) it is subject to money. It will never be free because it is not “public”.
How to Kill Bitcoin: A Guide for Governments
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nirvana-ku... I don't remember if these songs had lyrics, but there are AI generated songs in the style of Cobain and Jim Morrison
It's not possible do to so, since it would be done asynchronously.

I'm sorry, I'll see myself out.
> People are leaving that neighborhood and an increase of Airbnbs indicate that those leaving are folks that do not need to sell an apartment to go to another one - that is, concentrated capital is leaving the neighborhood.

Source? I know a few people who own AirBnBs and they all decided to buy new properties to rent out. I don't see a reason to expect most AirBnBs used to be residences that the owners fled.
Obviously this decision is not guaranteed to remain in place forever. Nevertheless, it could be tremendously beneficial for future generations.
At the most basic level, denying or downplaying a previous genocide increases the odds of a future genocide.
Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1-B3M_KaRQ

It does contain lyrics, but the singing is not AI generated.
AI-generated Nirvana song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GogY7RQFFus
host some violent folks' content

Consider the Irish Troubles. Consider the US Civil Rights movement.
Though if you get a new job during the period the non-compete is valid, the amount can be reduced down to 50%, depending on your income. The company also can't enforce the non-compete if they fire you. The Norwegian way of handling this is good, I think.
Misleading by what standard? “misleading content” may well be in the eyes of beholders.
I'm surprised the author doesn't mention the fact that only 2%-5% of the cone cells in our eyes can perceive blue. That's a huge factor in how well we process colors with blue light.
By whose laws? Even within the US, there are plenty of different laws. Should it be an intersection of all laws, everywhere? Only content which is lawful around the world? Or regionally? Should people outside those regions be segmented off from content that isn't in their region?

Moreover, you're saying that spam should be forced to be hosted by these companies, just like our snail-mail protects. Even if it takes up Exabytes of information.

Should people who have their content removed be able to sue these companies for removing it?
Alternate source showing something similar: https://gamesx.com/misctech/visual.htm
> I think people are alarmed

I think your view is skewed. Every single person I've talked to about this as looked at me like they are bored. Of course, here on HN, I've found many like-minded people. That's great, but I think very few humans, especially humans in the power structures that run this planet, care about this issue.
I see a lot of comments misinterpreting this.

First, it's not about private files, it's about distributing content.

Google isn't spying on your private files, but does scan them when you share them publicly. E.g. keep all the pirated movies you want on your Drive, and even give private access to friends, but the moment you make them publicly viewable Google scans them and limits access accordingly. So no, this isn't applying to your private diary or privately shared documents.

And second, to those who claim absolute free speech with no limits -- notice that the two main categories here are related to democracy and health. All our legal protections ultimately depend on a democratic foundation -- undo that with misinformation and you don't have anything anymore. Similarly, your rights don't matter much if you're dead. Companies aren't allowed to advertise rat poison as medicine and neither are you.
> I don't want to give my money to companies that host things that I find morally abhorrent.

Isn't that a sign of a moral panic? Back in the 90s, my parents didn't want to patronize companies that signed deals with pornographers. Even though I was only 10, that sounded ridiculous. Good luck finding any large company that doesn't.
1. Nobody would adopt it.

2. clients would need to do extra DNS queries, which introduces latency
Considering the number of people dependent on insulin, I wonder if it would be possible for diabetics to form a coop-like structure and purchase it (or make it) at rock-bottom production prices for members.
"Running programs" is easy. Getting correct answers, not so much. In the case of factoring 15, afaik, nobody has been able to execute Shor's algorithm faithfully -- instead, they simplify the factoring problem using knowledge of the answer. This isn't necessarily about Google -- last I looked, IBM holds the "factorization record" where they were either using a modified Grover's algorithm that incorporated knowledge of the factors. This isn't my area of expertise, but if it was, I'd be hugely embarrassed by the industry.

And then off in the corner, we've got D-Wave, who everybody loves to hate on, doing their own thing with an optimization-based approach to factoring which actually seems to work on (iirc) 10-ish bit semiprimes and zero foreknowledge.
> > neighborhoods which are more violent for some other reason are more likely to end up as Airbnbs

> First the Airbnb shows up, years later comes the violence.

I didn't necessarily mean that they happened in the order that I wrote, although I can see that was a reasonable way to interpret what I wrote.

I meant more along the lines of: a third variable put them on that path to violence whether or not they also became Airbnbs.

violence
third variable <
owners moving out -> airbnbs
Don't bother - hawala.com is taken
Once the engineering of the telescope was complete, making multiple scopes shouldn't have cost that much more. Launch 'em all.
It sort of makes sense, if it is a document, that is public or widely shared (anyone with link can access), in which case it serve not only as a collaboration tool, but also a sort of "CDN". Though even then, limiting access seems appropriate, "removing the content, and limiting or terminating a user’s access to Google products" is too much.
Just a few days ago, there was a submission on HN about an Ancient Greek city where one side was so totally sure about its victory that it committed unspeakable crimes on the losing side - only to get whacked once a foreign military force allied with the losers arrived and the still surviving ones suddenly had a chance of revenge.
it sounds like it's basically unlike chainmail in all possible ways!
I used to freelance in the past, and I always charged extra for signing NDAs other than my standard one. Usually it turned out that my standard one was good enough after all, but sometimes I actually got paid for signing the client's "special" NDA.

I've never seen any one that egregious, though. I'd charge quite a lot to sign that.
Sorry what do you mean by "human insulin"?
Agreed on the first kind. It kind of sort of makes sense in the original context: say I run a bakery. I put it up for sale. You think it's a pretty good deal, so we agree and I sell the bakery to you. Then I take the money you paid me to renovate the building across the street, hire your employees out from under you. Customers quickly learn that the "original" moved across the street, and I'm laughing all the way to the bank. A noncompete that says, "I promise not to open a bakery within 40 miles in in the next 3 years" is pretty reasonable. However, the concept deteriorates with the internet, where there's no reasonable equivalent of a 40 mile radius, so the terms become "just don't use your expertise for X years".

Noncompetes for employees are much more dubious. If my head chef wants to try and pull the same trick on me, it's his investment at risk... If he's really that motivated to undercut me, maybe I should think long and hard about why. The only variant I could see being okay with is if the term starts at the start of the employment. That is, if you leave after 2 months, you can't compete for 22 months, but if you stay the full 2 years, nothing stops you. (I still don't like that, but it's tolerable).

I'm not sure about the second type of noncompete. Is it the problem, or is the problem that your employer does everything? I suspect both, and a fairer version would restrict the noncompete to "stuff that you work on directly". Or maybe the noncompete should have to specify the bounds and wouldn't be enforceable if they're too broad, similar to patents... on second thought, never mind. In any case, I'd first like to see whether it's still overly restrictive if companies were capped to some reasonable size.
Vetting the Security of Mobile Applications [pdf]
What bothers me is the idea that we can only have one type of computing--that for general-purpose computing to exist, we have to kill off every other kind of computing.

This is not a zero-sum game. We can have console-style computers and general purpose computers, and they can both exist simultaneously without one having to win and the other having to lose.
Can you clarify if you are being sarcastic or not?
Sometimes spelt Elie Cohn. 'Our Man in Damascus' is an excellent read (if you can manage to find a copy).
There's always the people who chime in about "but, but, but private insurance means you don't have to wait 6 months to have surgery!"

I had to wait year. US Health Insurance is a fucking nightmare to deal with that the largest allocation of man hours within a hospital is billing between multiple networks. Imagine the savings on that alone if coverage was universal.
Welcome to the suck. Most don't. It's less of a dopamine hit if before posting anything you take 2-3 hours to go through at least 1 or 2 papers in detail.

Then again, if you' want to show equanimity during a controversy, you'd have to go read what is said on the "other side" of any such debate.

IMHO, most people don't want to be "nuance"-pilled either way on any subject, much less in regards to the Covid situation. Going straight to the jugular in a comment is easier.
> we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like

I'd argue that there is already a (fairly) tried and tested process in place to deal with this, it's the legal system.

There are plenty of media outlets that publish stuff I don't particularly like, but almost none of it is illegal, so - to be blunt - I just have to suck it up.

Some of my friends have opinions that I - at times - violently disagree with, but I file that under one of the side effects of life, and I deal with it.

I'm rarely "outraged" by companies hosting stuff. If it's illegal, knock yourself out and get it taken down.

However if it's just really, really annoying or you find it against your own worldview, perhaps take a deep breath / drink a cup of tea* / go to the gym / hug your OH, and move on to something more important?

* or gin :)
Robustness is irrelevant, because whenever there is a hole in the various specs people ask "What is BIND doing?"
> It's called hormesis

No. [1] The context of the whole conversation is traumatic relationships. If anything you are talking about eustress - and traumatic relationships are not beneficial and do not "make you stronger" [2].

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress#Compared_with_distres...
Funny enough, him describing the ploy while sort of mocking it as it happened led to an enjoyable moment in that episode (imo). It showcased his humility, and ability to make the most out of a situation while not taking himself too seriously.
Demonstrably used to mean "provably so", but now it's more akin to "debunked by made up website X"
I can see the day coming when few people will have general-purpose computers. Those will be the people who make things, and also have a good set of tools and maybe a milling machine.

This has already happened with phones and tablets, after all. And Chromebooks. And Windows 365. And Windows S. And locked-down enterprise machines.
I don't think it is anything like simulating a mechanical action like throwing a ball, just saying a word alters brains in completely different ways depending on the person, for example saying "spider" reminds me of spiderman and there is little I can to stop such through from happening, to someone else it may remind them of something completely different, even my own thoughts about that word may be different any other day.

To actually capture words you have much better chances reading the brain while writing the word with a pen because you are actually sending a signal from the brain to your hand, which is what they did here (even if he doesn't actually have a hand to move, the brain still can emit the very same commands): https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/brain-implants-let-para...
Why all the hatred on Airbnb? I think the fact that housing is treated as an investment vehicle rather than... a home should be dealt with first. Just walking around my neighborhood you can see who is renting and who owns based on the upkeep and effort put into the property. Airbnb is a minuscule fraction compared to the torrent of homes that are purchased as investments vs for living in.
What war? For GPC? So funny!
Is this related to https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/issues/4575 ?
I think the commenter means that just because you know an element with a certain property is in the set, we can't conclude that there is a way to "choose" such an element. All we know is there exists at least one of these elements, there could be one (in which case we have a choice function that is well defined, choose the one element that satisfies the property) or there could be infinitely many such elements and we're stuck back at the beginning to construct a choice function.

Edit: I think the above might be wrong actually, I haven't had a proper set theory course yet but it looks like "existential instantiation" [0] is what allows you to "choose" the element here (possibly?) but this sits within the logic that proceeds ZF set theory.

Also see [1] for a decent discussion on AOC for finite sets.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_instantiation
[1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/132717/do-we-need-t...
This was our situation when our kids were little. My wife would have been able to clear something like $20/wk (or was it per month ... I forget) working full time after costs. Just wasn't worth it.
Putting words in dead peoples mouths is unpopular. Shocking.
The impact of that is asymmetrical, though. A company that's making 1% profit (thinking a rural TV station here, not necessarily Google) can't afford to lose 10% of it's viewers, so they dial down their programming to the least objectionable possible. That's how we get in a situation where most people want to watch Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones but what they get are Brady Bunch reruns.
> Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours.

A lot of siblings have pointed out that this isn't the case (I'd agree), so it's maybe worth digging into why you (and likely many people) think this should be the case.

My guess is it's to do with IP and trade-secrets, but that's clearly already covered by IP law and absolutely doesn't need extra provisions in employment contracts to protect company interests there.

If I create a competing stock app, I need to be able to demonstrate novelty. If I can do that, I don't see an issue. My employer still has a lot of advantages in the market (first-to-market network effect, funding, etc.) so if I'm able to compete with them without stealing IP, I must have (tangible/intangible) assets unique to me as an individual to do so: my employment contract should not sign over those assets outside of my working hours.

If I'm actively weakening my employer's product during my working hours to benefit my own that's easily a firing offence without the need for non-competes.

What other reasons are there?
That is the point of the free market. But deplatforming certain kinds of offensive content is regressive.

For instance, in the not-so-distant past many Americans found interracial marriage morally abhorrent. Wikipedia says only 5% of Americans thought interracial marriage should be legal in the 1950s. In today’s environment, that leads to deplatforming those who would’ve supported marriage equality. This is not something we would desire.

People are full of prejudices. I’m sure our grandchildren will look back in horror at ours. Let’s not deplatform them for that.
I'm sorry, but no one from a reasonable standpoint is going to look at Google not hosting "misleading content" and then think democracy is threatened.