skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree with everything except "I think your fundamental error is in the fact that you think" - I don't think this, and I don't think my post implied that I think that either.

To clarify my statement: "We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information." - I don't think that the structure provided by a company is sufficient to do this properly. Rather than companies/governments, we need protocols and standards. For instance, what if we had a decentralized app (dapp) built on something like cardano, that allowed one to edit docs that lived on an IPFS? We might have to sacrifice some micro-conveniences (e.g. google docs saves automatically for you as often as every few keystrokes) to make it tenable on something like a blockchain, but it seems feasible.
People call for tech regulation.

Government has mandate to regulate tech.

Tech realizes that shift in power and self regulates in a way favourable to the government.

This reminds me of when Reddit tossed out Ellen Pao. Reddit demanded wholesale change, so what they got /u/spez, who happily banned all manner of subreddits when the fight was originally about one.

https://old.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...
>We have an event in our ORM to automatically generate the next sequence value as part of the transaction so if the transaction is rolled back, the next sequence value is as well.

I assume that means you also have to only allow one TX to be in-flight at a time adding a new record whose ID is generated from a given sequence?
It’s a good question. Well, CRDTs are just an underlying data type that guarantee conflict free eventual consistency. That doesn’t mean the result would be an English paragraph or buildable code, however. Then what git does really well that bare CRDTs don’t are things like branching and local experimentation. Being intentional with commit points can also keep file sizes down, for a more real-time tool like Docs potentially every character change would be stored. CRDTs can have performance problems with things like file size growth.

For, your use case of user changes, CRDTs seem like a good option. It would be interesting to explore building a version control system on top of CRDTs, if done right it could have the benefits of git with less merge conflicts.
My statement >>People are making rational and sound financial decision that benefits them personally and that is deemed a problem?

Your statement >> This is the logical conclusion to your statement: that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society.

Based on the above it would appear that you assumed a conclusion that happens to include benefit to society. That I did not state. What I did say, however, is that I find it mildly amusing that in a country where individualistic approach to life if not, dare I say it, selfish as a celebrated norm, the moment the situation happens to benefit the little guy, out of the woodwork come people bemoaning that someone is not making nearly as much as they did before. Forgive me while I do not shed to many tears in the process.

But even if I assume your assertion that it logically follows that "that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society."( and clearly do not think it does ). The two situations are diametrically different in scope, its societal impact and the way we would attempt to correct it.

In other words, the problem is scale.
Is there a reason the word `black` seems to be randomly interspersed in front of words? Was there a find/replace all that went wrong?
<3 curious where have you experience this the most? We are also trying to figure out at what point does the problem become acute.
I also adore the series. It's become my favorite sci-fi I've read in years.

You're leaving out the time required to communicate. Yes, communication would require less energy, but time is a constant that even type 3 civilizations could be in short supply of.

The chain of suspicion calls this out explicitly, it's not that the civs cannot communicate, it's that due to the extreme lengths of time required for back-and-forth communications their societies are likely to significantly change during communications, leading to higher probability of the technological explosion.

What medium was primed for the technological explosion on Earth since the industrial revolution? I mean, I reckon we could point to an array of things that have seemed as though they would be a limit, but thus-far we've always found ways past that (see: peak oil). I'm not trying to indicate I think our trends _will_ go on forever, just that it seems possible they could.
You are equating criticizing a religion with spreading hate speech. Islam or any religion is not "off the table in terms of discussion". Many European countries, including Germany, simply don't want people crossing the lines into speech that can incite people to harm others.
Big ongoing discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032
Why not study the Human Immune System and how to reinforce it via diet. Like how they studied bone loss decades ago and decided to add Vitamin D to milk to increase calcium uptake. Seems to me there are millions of potential pathogens that could be problematic for humans, increasing defenses seems to be the rational approach, if one’s intent is to actually preserve human life.
I'd say sneaking added sugar into products is unethical, but that's probably just a matter of opinion.
>> "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm."

One can hope that this will apply to the massive anti-vax campaigns on YouTube
Well we could create a new government organization that determines what the current best known truth is ("Department of Truth" say) and Google censors just remove anything that goes against the Department of Truth
Doesn't need to be a private company.

For instance, LibreOffice is looking at WASM:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/WASM
You don't have to be an arbiter of all truth to flag some statements as dangerously untrue. Just because truth is sometimes hard to determine doesn't mean that we have to give up on there being an objective reality
I have never considered that there might not be a distinction, it always seems to me that the heels are different at least. Feet are different, shoes are different, so why would socks not also be shaped for the feet and mirrored left/right in the same way?

Turns out, it depends which socks you buy - there are makes which are different, and ones which aren't. examples at https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-left-and-right-sock-in-a-pa... including toe-socks but not limited to them.
> I agree that you do not have to be a big company to make a product like that, but it seems like you have to be a big company in order to host and deliver it.

The tragedy isn't in what you've said, but rather what you haven't said. The implication is already that a product of GDocs/GSheets quality should be free, as part of a large company's moat, rather than a paid for product that people will pay for.

The tragic reality is thanks to these large companies turning what would otherwise be successful standalone businesses, into free additional features.

I've used that word because Steve Jobs famously described Dropbox as a feature. Google has effectively made MS Office a feature. Apple effectively made operating systems a feature, by giving away macOS and iOS for free with their hardware sales.

Increasingly, everything becomes a feature, in search of what? For big tech, it's to sell users attention.

Meanwhile, on the other side, big media is charging us to give them our attention...
Your opinion on the tax credit is not unique but also disheartening.
Even more problematic is the difficulty current algorithms have in distinguishing "engaging" in a certain class of speech acts from studying said class. This requires a subtlety of parsing humans are (sometimes) capable of, but machines still struggle with.
Traditionis Custodes
So basically all the credit rating agencies and the government itself?
Or does the OPM get sovereign immunity?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-opm-hack-far-worse-you-imagi...
I am, but anything I would have said was already said by one of the top ten redundant outrage comments, so I'm not wasting HN's time piling on in that regard. Upvotes are a stellar alternative to "me too" replies that contribution nothing but redundancy.

It's interesting that you interpret my reply as containing an opinion about the post topic, when it doesn't state any opinion about Google's actions at all. I don't consider it appropriate to infuse every statement I make with outrage, even if I'm outraged, because that saps the life from communities when it's a common practice. Perhaps you're (incorrectly) reading between the lines that the lack of infused outrage as some sort of statement of my opinion?
> In 1952, Batista again ran for president. In a three-way race, Roberto Agramonte of the Orthodox Party led in all the polls, followed by Carlos Hevia of the Authentic Party. Batista's United Action coalition was running a distant third.

Batista was losing to a left-wing candidate, did a coup, and there was no election. Then he continued to support US corporate interests. This doesn't track at all with, you know, *gestures broadly at US intervention in Latin America* to you?
I'm looking forward to the headlines in 2024 when Austin is shitty and overpriced and all the VC people hop on the next caravan. My bet is they go to Colorado next time!
Yes, it's true that you can use the Axiom of Choice in ways that don't invoke infinite information, and yes, those would be OK with me from an aesthetic point of view. (Again let me emphasize my complaint here is not that it is "invalid" but that I find it very unaesthetic, contra many conventional mathematicians.) But things like the Banach-Tarski paradox definitely require infinite amounts of information (uncountable infinite in this case, I believe) with, as far as I know, no mechanism for producing it. As far as I know, it's just an existence proof.

When discussing hypothetical FTL technologies, I often like to say that it's no great surprise that if you allow one impossibility (negative mass) it's no surprise that you get another (FTL). Similarly, if you allow an uncountably infinite amount of information to be magicked into your proof, it's no surprising that you may get a confusing result like the Banach-Tarski paradox. From my perspective, the confusing step isn't when you have two spheres where you used to have one, the confusing step is when you made uncountably-infinitely-precise cuts with no ability to produce the cuts in question. I'm not confused by the end result, I'm confused at that step. So to speak. I'm not literally confused, obviously, only my sense of aesthetics is.
I don’t like the wording here as it asserts causation rather than correlation.

Skimming the content, it seems like they do attempt to eliminate potential causes, however I don’t feel convinced. it seems like they’ve just proven correlation better than anecdotal evidence.
I found the Remarkable quite good. I have a problem where I lose my notebooks, or have multiple notebooks for the same topic. The Remarkable is nice in that I can put it all in one device.

Also the writing experience is 90% of the way to natural writing, and the battery life is amazing.

Not an ad, I just like the product.
Companies like EMC also pushed for them.

But changes in the law in 2018 weakened them considerably and made them more expensive to enforce via garden leave or alternative consideration. The only time I've had a non-compete in MA (small sample to be sure) was when EMC acquired my employer. The terms were actually fairly reasonable and didn't affect me when I left six months later.
Government regulation is no substitute for competition. The ability for consumers to walk away to a suitable alternative maintains a continual accountability that a single agency is unlikely to deliver.
Apple's failure/refusal to update the Time Capsule after 2013 (2013!) is a weird stain on their carefully curated ecosystem.

First they come out with Time Machine backups in late 2007, which is the most amazing file backup system ever made in terms of UI/X, come out with a tailored hardware platform for capturing those backups across all of your macs on a network, and then...not a goddamn thing except for breaking backups periodically. No reliability improvements. No compatibility improvements. Time Machine is still fucking weird and finicky and unreliable and randomly breaks after system updates, and it's still built into the OS, and Apple hasn't released a new first party product for using it with in ages, and it's still the most beautiful backup system ever made sitting there just taunting you.

So people are left to set up their own NAS which fails 9 times out of 10, making the entire setup process annoying as hell: "Try this configuration tweak." "Nope, still doesn't work." "Does it say why?" "No." "Ok, try this one."
My bet is this study has the cause and effect backward, which seems to be supported by the study itself and their reaching for vague claims of breakdown of neighborhoods ability to fend off crime due to social cohesion.

My observation based on people I know in Chicago who are renting out Airbnb is that rapidly rising crime and taxes have caused people to want to move, however the same factors motivating them to leave, ie crime and taxes, have made it impossible for them to sell their property. Unable to sell their apartments these people turn to Airbnb rentals to help fund their new homes since rentals to people who don't know the neighborhoods better are the only way to monitize properties in neighborhoods that were already falling apart before Airbnb thanks to Chicago's utterly incompetent and corrupt government.

Point being, Airbnb is a symptom of your neighborhood going to shit, not a cause.
I guess I'm more harsh about such things. The quickest I've bounced from a gig is 1 week. It was a startup, and the owner couldn't stop telling me all kinds of fantasy stories that were clearly made up on the spot. His ex-girlfriend was part Jinn (a Genie!) and he claims to have been shot through the chest with a scud missile while serving in one of 2 different wars, depending on when he retells the story.

It drove me nuts. I couldn't even tell if he had a real product by the end of that week because his grasp on reality was so loose, and it really seemed he was stringing his investors on.

As far as I can tell, he since lost his investors and his business is tanking / tanked, so at least some of my estimations of his ability to start a business were correct. The police had to "escort" him out of his lab, and last I saw of him, he was soliciting people to do his Lisp programming on a free volunteer basis. The quantum industry already has enough wankers, and he was at a special level of wankery.
> I do think Google has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information

If so... do you think that your ISP also has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information?
NAS+[Samba|AFP]+Time Machine has been consistently unstable for me. I could not make it work reliably. My remote backups would regularly be corrupted. YMMV.
>What makes you think the government is that Messiah?

I didn't get that impression from that post...
iPad Mini + Apple Pencil. Although I would wait until later in the year for a revision w/ 5G.
> The other truth is we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like

Please, speak for yourself. I think these companies should host absolutely everything[0]. Between 2010-2016 was the golden age for these companies actually being free and open.

Edit: Within the law. To be honest, there is very little I see that should be censored beyond CP.
"At the end of the day, we won't have truly free speech because far too few of us really want truly free speech." - that's a terrifying prospect.

I agree, I don't think Google is trying to "protect" people. They are ultimately, almost always, protecting their pockets.
No progress on a nix-windows recently. I think the hardest part has just been keeping up with nix when we need to rewrite the build system.

However, https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/3160 to switch to Meson, has gotten new life breathed into it. Pamplemousse, who is interning where Edolstra works, is fuzzing Nix and needs Meson to make that less burdensome.

If that does get merged, than nix-windows can just be about Windows and not also be about Nix's build system, which will make it a lot easier to finish.
ISP Censorship is next on their list… They are going to push normal discorse underground and bad ideas will just fester instead of being natually filtered out in the proving grounds of public discorse.
Get rich, slowly.

But seriously what about just having a faster and cheaper way to transfer money without over regulation. Banks close on weekends, over Easter I waited 5 days for a national transaction that is so not 2021

And I dont even life in a country where banking is complicated, think about transferring money to or from Asia or Africa.
The issue is that we know from experience, after 20+ years of the modern Internet, that if you make a 'free speech' drive/repository place that's widely available, it will host the absolute worst of the human race. Then, let's say you personally were in charge of said Free Speech Drive- every day you'd get up and hear about people using it for (legal) jailbait photos, Islamic State recruiting, collaboration between extremist militia groups in various countries (including your own), actual illegal content, and so on. Pretty soon the FBI & CIA start contacting you about some of the actual or borderline illegal content being hosted on Free Speech Drive. Do you want to deal with that?

For one thing, it's easy to say 'well we'd only take down illegal content'. But in practice there isn't such a bright line, there's lots of borderline stuff, authorities could rule something posted on your site illegal after the fact- lots of these situations are up to a prosecutor's judgement call. Would you risk jail to push the boundaries? Coordinating 1/6 wasn't necessarily illegal until- it was.

If Islamic State is recruiting on Free Speech Drive, posting manifestos, encouraging Western residents to actual jihad- you wouldn't take that down? You'd leave it up if it hewed up to the line of being legal- really? Jailbait or non-nude pics of someone's teenage daughter, hosted in the thousands- you wouldn't take that down? It's easy to be an absolutist in an Internet argument, it's much harder when you face the sort of everyday content moderation issues you see in the real world
Risk someone else's money not your own. If you can't convince someone else to risk their money on your idea, it's probably not good enough even if you manage to execute and ship.

You have a house at 25, let that sink in for a bit. Why fuck yourself when you don't have to?
I think it does. Insurance companies use it to calculate the monthly payments. I am sure they are well quantized.
We have both nextcloud and LibreOffice.
Oh that's ok, didn't YouTube just win a major award for Human Rights or something...?
That doesn't sound like a lie. Sounds like a very real possible consequence, given the way the laws around that kind of thing are written and enforced.
> An advanced civilization close to us that is surveying the sky for signs of life would have very likely identified earth as a very promissing candidate due to the presence of methane and oxygen in its atmosphere at the same time.

Signs of carbon-based life - who is to say all forms of life are carbon-based? The universe is vast, what are the odds of aliens being in our vicinity and time (light cone) stumbling upon our galaxy or star?
Y is basically "mostly green, a bit of red and hardly any blue" rather than a flat R+G+B. So blurring the green channel (as TFA does) is nearly equivalent to blurring the Y channel.
JFYI, you may be inferring "gang-caused" from "gang-related".

> An additional concern is the varying methods by which homicides are classified as “gang-related.” The most commonly used is the “member-based” approach, in which a homicide is classified as gang-related if the victim was and/or the perpetrator is a gang member.

[] https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/about/faq#faq-5-how-are-g...

Also, tons of people (850k - 1.4m) are classified as gang members. The criteria for being a gang member is very broad and includes friend groups who've been arrested:

- The group has three or more members, generally aged 12–24.

- Members share an identity, typically linked to a name, and often other symbols.

- Members view themselves as a gang, and they are recognized by others as a gang.

- The group has some permanence and a degree of organization.

- The group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity.

[] https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/about/faq#faq-1-what-is-a...

[] 850k https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/about/faq#faq-4-how-exten...

[] 1.4 million (page 9) https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publicati...

If you calculate out the statistics, there're tons of people classified as gang members

{ latino: ~50%, black: ~30%, white non-latino: ~15% }

{ latino: 450k-700k, black: 250-400k, white non-latino: 125-200k }

(I don't know how they classify black latino vs white latino)

[] https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/about/faq#faq-11-what-is-...

You can compare these numbers to the total population of males (90% of gang members are male) in the 14-24 age range (I excluded the 10-14 population even though it's included in the 12-24 age range). Classifying 10% of the population as being in a gang basically makes the label useless since you can then call almost anything "gang-related".

{ latino: 5m, black: 3m, white non-latino: 15m }

{ latino: ~10%, black: ~10%, white non-latino: 1% }

[] https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSDT1Y2011.B01001I

[] https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B01001B

[] https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B01001A
This is a technique used in other ways too. For instance, when opening a new checking account, it’s common to start with an arbitrary number for the first check. And often new businesses will start with an arbitrary invoice number.
The first one is absolutely problematic, and I've been personally negatively affected by other people's non-competes a couple of times, but there's some nuance there, I think.

I would like to live in a world where companies invest heavily in educating and training their employees and where there's a lot of transparency within companies. One of the reasons you don't get that is because of the fear of an employee getting seduced by a tiny pay increase and losing a bunch of competitive edge / trade secrets / investment.

There are other ways to address that than non-competes, granted, but we're not doing those things either. In place of more nuanced non-competes you just get more companies expecting you to take on the risk of buying your own education to be trained in a job, bureaucracy and lack of trust in employees, etc.