skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Absolutely -- very early in my career, a startup I worked at had non-compete language in my original employment contract (naming very specific places I couldn't be poached to take a job at) and even though the company was very small and the person who made me the job offer was the COO (and they assured me they would never actually excise the non-compete), I still refused to sign until that language was taken out.

I also got language put into my contract to specifically allow for some of my moonlighting activities that could possibly be seen as a conflict. Both wound up being useful when the company expanded and they attempted to enforce different rules on me. Because my contract said what it said, I was able to get the HR person to back-off and didn't have any fear when I did eventually leave for a competitor. And because of my moonlighting clause, I was able to have side-projects when other employees were often discouraged from doing the same thing (part of me felt bad for having different rules, but if I was capable of getting those clauses put in my contract when I was 24, others were too).

It is true that employees, especially lower-level employees, don't always have the leverage to change the contracts they sign (especially at larger companies), but I would personally never sign a non-compete unless there were very specific scenarios involved (i.e. it was either incredibly, incredibly narrow or the company would pay me while I waited out the non-compete), no matter what HR or the recruiter says. You don't need to be adversarial when discussing language or making changes -- most places are reasonable. And if a place isn't reasonable but refuses to remove non-compete language from a contract, even though they swear they will never exercise it, well, that's a giant red flag.
We've changed the title from "Israeli Firm’s Spyware Used Against Dissidents, Microsoft Says" as part of changing the URL from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-15/israeli-f... to the report it points to.
Both interpretations seem like mighty big stretches to find this particular content as noncomplaiant with that policy. IMHO, if the policy gets stretched like that, then the issue isn't with the policy itself.

I mean, you could make similar stretches to hypothetically ban discussion of tax increases, because of the serious emotional harm that would cause to wealthy people fearing the loss of their money.

Honestly, the only issue with the actual text that I see is the reference to "emotional harm," given how subjective that is and how certain ideological propositions can be medicalized via that route. The rest of it is very reasonable, especially the paragraphs about civic processes and manipulated media.
Right, but what about by this March/April?

I don't understand why most functional governments didn't eventually have a monthly care package of "here's your masks, hand sanitizer, the latest newsletter, and your stimulus check".
"Russia’s most aggressive ransomware group disappeared. It’s unclear who made that happen." - NYT.[1]

Somehow, the problem seems to have been dealt with.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/13/us/politics/russia-hackin...
Thank you for the negative downvotes! I know that I'm 1000% correct when HN users downvote me without a response. Your little clicks on the down arrow give me confidence, so THANK YOU!
The thing is you are "promoting distribution of what you think is right" literally right now. Like, with this very comment right here, you are being politically active!

So, assuming you are acting rationally, you are right now promoting what you think is "right" ("anything legal", "1st amendment" eg the United States's Constitution), while countering what you think is "wrong".

If you didn't believe in the promotion of what you think is right, then you wouldn't be posting to argue against what you think is wrong! You would never upvote (bias) or downvote (censorship) and so on. Sure, you could argue that your style of promotion (comments on HN), or that promoting your worldview in general is better for certain outcomes, but ultimately your still just arguing for "freedom" in your particular definition of "freedom" (still promoting or opposing distribution of right/wrong)
This is the problem, isn't it? You seem to be posting an easy question to answer. But it's not, is it? Who is Google to judge what anyone would "consider violent or garbage?"

I don't remember electing them to control this aspect of life. And where does it stop? What is the line? Who is actually defining these things?

When a small group of people control the definition of "wrong think" then we're gonna have a problem regardless of which side of the argument those people are on.

While your question is innocent enough, I get the feeling you already knew the answer.
> In the 40s tax was around 90% to pay for all the needed infrastructure and other projects.

I think this applied to the highest tax bracket which only covered a few people.
Lab leak hypothesis.
My claim was not that publishers didn't exist, but that the commonly presented distinction between platform and publisher - that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality, or else they must be be considered a "publisher," lose Section 230 protection and take full legal responsibility for all content on their site - does not exist. Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.
FYI Austria and Germany haven't been a unified country in three quarters of a century.

My original comment was about laws against misinformation in Germany. That doesn't mean I endorse or need to defend all free speech laws in all of Europe.
Hubble is a great example of just working the problem.
Did I accidentally stumble into The_Donald? The bizarre, fact-free comments that dominate this discussion are simply gross for HN.

How in the world was this comment flagged, beyond the brigading of the most ignorant of deplorables. There is zero information about "election fraud" coming out, much less from multiple states, but this is the tact these horrendous cretins use to ply their disinformation noise. But did you see all of the news coming out about how the "MAGA" crew are actually lizard people with sub-50 IQs? It's true, you'll see. It's true! The Cyber Biologists did a "study" and they pointed out that in a picture the insurrectionists reflected light just so, clearly demonstrating that they must be lizard people.

It is embarrassing to see this on HN. The US is turning into a laughing stock.
Goodness, a mathematics hardcover for $21? I'm in!
You broke the site guidelines with this. They ask:

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you wouldn't mind reviewing and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
One of our team summed it up very nicely: Pragmatically, this design notion comes from Red being a data format first (code is data and data can be used as code). To mimick scoping at data level, context has to be implicit. As a consequence, any block of code e.g. [take the spoon] can be passed around, evaluated on demand in any place, used in user-defined custom loops, without losing the original meaning even if all it's words `take`, `the` and `spoon` were defined differently in those loops or other functions.

Rebol's designer called this "definitional scoping". What it means is that where a word (variable) exists is important. The "where" part leads to https://github.com/red/red/wiki/%5BDOC%5D-Why-you-have-to-co... and is one of the big things that messes with your head when you come to Red from other langs. :^) For many people this stays invisible forever and things just work. But it doesn't take much for people to step off the ledge and into deep water, because things look so easy and it seems like you should be able to just pass blocks around and have everything work magically. It's internally consistent in how it works, but that's hard to see without tooling we have yet to build.
Consider the time period and the historical context. It's modern times, Cold War is occurring, and WW1 and WW2 left scars across Western Europe and caused major changes in the art world, including being a boon to abstraction and fragmenting styles into many eclectic directions.

Chemistry has DRASTICALLY altered painting from the Renaissance to the World War era. New pigments have been constantly highlighted and displayed in artwork. Finally, an insanely blue blue has been invented, bluer than any other blue paint in the past.

The artist highlighted above attempts to showcase the new technology in its purest form. Though, despite this strive for purity of blue, the application is inherently uneven. If you look into the painted canvas up close, you will see imperfections and patterns in "just a wall". It's also a statement, it may cause reactions and cause viewers to question the boundary between art and not-art.

It's not my cup of tea compared to masterworks of Van Gogh or Homer or any of the legendary painters, but art goes through many phases and is used to express many different ideas. What I do think is bonkers is that modern artists (who are well-connected) may be paid millions of dollars for these works, which to me don't showcase skill and talent, but which reward creative ideation and concepts.
What's the problem with apartments? I've lived in apartments almost my entire life and they seem fine to me.
I am not sure that the user would enjoy waiting x days for message delivery to start again. Perhaps a late message is never delivered to prevent it from being out of order? I guess my problem is understanding exactly what we are trying to prevent in practice.
I read their Discussion and Conclusions and feel they missed an important point: the dynamic of short-term rentals even in quiet, socially-connected neighborhoods is to disarm the vigilance of neighbors. Tight-knit communities look out for each other, and have a sense when things are out-of-place. When short-term rentals invite a stream of tourists, neighbors can’t discern if they are criminals or visitors. It’s like the presence of constant novelty disables the neighborhood’s immune response.
I think the protections for phone operators are the anti liberal parts.

These companies are choosing to repeat what people tell them. They should always be considerate when doing so.

Picking operators who's opinions align with yours is the liberal way, using the free market to pick which ideas get repeated
In that case, you simply need to email back before signing with the changes you need made. The company will do that to you if they get something wrong (wrong start date, incorrect pay or bonus percentage), so it is completely reasonable to have a conversation about what adjustments you need made to your contract. The worst they can say is no. And if they say no, that's a sign that you should really think about what you are signing.
Can't I get Google Workspace right now which isn't ad-supported?
The best two note apps are standard notes and Joplin. They are almost identical. Standard notes has a few extra features, but I think Joplin is minutely faster iirc. Both are encrypted and then synced via other cloud providers
Sorry but your content is misleading. Take for example the following quote, from Amnesty International, which cite in your article:

> governments [with] poor regulation of the possession and use of guns lead to violence and that they must tackle this now through strict controls on guns and effective interventions in communities suffering high levels of gun violence.

From this say the following:

> The key statement is:

Guns lead to violence

The statement above implies a couple of things:

1. Gun volume and violence are correlated

2. As the number of guns increase, violence increases

—————

This is a blatant distortion of what that quote from Amnesty is saying.

That are clearly saying that _poor regulation of the possession and use of guns_ leads to violence.

You are quite obviously engaging in bad faith arguments.

edit: formatting
Just like people used to believe the sun was a god or something magical for centuries but now we know it's a mass of gas under nuclear fusion. In general believing that something we don't understand happens due magic (or however you wanna call non-material reality) has a bad track record.
Spoilers for The Dark Forest and The Remembrance of Earth's Past Trilogy below.

In the book that the OP article is based on, humanity is doing anything and everything to prevent/defend themselves against an alien invasion happening ~400 years in the future. The character who coins "Dark Forest" theory in the book proposes sending a 'spell' (just a signal containing coordinates) to a nearby star, which is then amplified throughout the universe via "Sci-Fi science". This reveals the location of the star, and shortly after the star is destroyed by some comet-sized object moving at the speed of light. It's later revealed that some other civilization listens for broadcasts on every spectrum, decodes them for coordinates, then destroys the ones that seem to have actually been sent by intelligent life.

I thought this made perfect sense - why wouldn't another intelligent species do this if they possess the technology? I personally agree with "Dark Forest" theory and think that we should /never/ make first contact (lest we are destroyed), but if we were to attempt first contact, we should at the very least have a weapon like you described available to us first.
Non-competes are pretty much banned in the only place that matters for tech (California). It's one of the factor that drove the emergence of Silicon Valley.

If your local state/country doesn't have California like laws, maybe it's an indicator it's time to jump ship!
When you see [flagged] on a submission, it means that users flagged it (this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case they probably thought it was spam.
> Because it creates a clear conflict of interest

If you're not doing your job anymore, or are sabotaging your dayjob, then it's an employment issue. NCCs have no reason whatsoever to enter the equation before or after.
This reminds me of a Norwegian series called Occupied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied

The premise is Norway suspends oil extraction completely, intensifying an energy crisis in Europe. In response, Russia invades and occupies Norway to force them to keep extracting oil, with the implicit support of the EU.
I’ve never met anyone without some astigmatism; especially, people with other vision impairment. Astigmatism is the number one cause of night blindness which is what you described.
Would be nuts for sure. Valve does have the money to get into custom silicon, so maybe if this takes off...
California’s ambitious fiber-Internet plan approved unanimously by legislature
I expect it will go as well as our collective immunity to advertising and other propaganda.
Position of an electron is actually not quite the same as position of a rock or bouncy ball. I've heard it described as an electron "cloud".
Van Gogh Illustrated Bookmark Is Found Tucked in a Novel
I am intrigued by the framing of the 'banning' of non-competes as regulatory intervention. It seems to me like we would be asking the court to refuse to enforce a contract. But this refusal manifests as a distinct lack of intervention on the part of regulators.

I.E. prior to this 'intervention' you could be hauled to court and/or jail for failure to meet a contractual obligation. Post 'intervention' nothing happens and you simply continue to search for a new job as you always had.

I understand that in our given legal framework every change must be some kind of positive action, but it seems odd to me to frame it in conversation (as this article did) as a positive action rather than negative one which is how it actually manifests.

I'll just finish by saying that I agree with the sentiment that non-competes should be unenforceable. If you do have company secrets an NDA has long standing precedent and is less intrusive.
If you waded through the first 3 pages of story looking for the answer like me, here it is: "in every single case that we were able to research fully, we found a convincing connection between a mystery package and an earlier [online] order."
I feel like attacking a virus this aggressively worldwide with a vaccine was a mistake since it will make the virus more resilient and resistant and spark thousands of new variants or in another words speed up its evolution and possibly cause and make a super virus.

Masks, social distancing and washing hands was and is enough.

Maybe vaccine should've been rolled out more slowly not everywhere at once.
Fair point! We definitely don't want our analytics to be used to enforce/incentivize arbitrary targets (we've seen those behaviors backfire so many times, unfortunately...). I'll update the language from "Keep a tab on your builds and merges. Know your star developers" to "Keep tabs on your builds, merges and developer activity".
I want to preface saying I do not believe in taxes, nor the child tax credit. And that I think both the child tax credit and unemployment (other than voluntarily unemployment insurance) are essentially armed robbery.

But it is asinine to compare a $300/mo tax credit towards an investment that will pay rich dividends (kids grow up and pay taxes to fund your public benefits in old age and contribute to scientific and medicinal advancement that benefit you after you're old enough to be a net burden on society) vs $1200+ a month in unemployment for an adult who is now disincentivized to do anything productive and could always just go live in the wilderness if they couldn't earn currency.
Not all or even most. Tech platform censorship is just ranked lower on their list of issues/grievances. How do you think activists should be spending their time?
The U.S has many adversaries, not only nation states but terrorist organizations like ISIL. Just because the most advanced adversaries probably have access to something doesn't mean that you shouldn't protect it from the weaker adversaries.

If anything, most of the U.S. engagement nowadays are against inferior enemies, not Russia, and against them, even small things like these can be useful to the enemy, especially an enemy with really shallow intelligence gathering.
You'll find that not many are for Google being so dominant and thus being able to limit potential information (or misinformation) spread, but you'll find almost everyone being against actually taking some of Google's wealth for doing so as they're still a private company and can do whatever that they want with their services, even if that's deleting information or removing files with the letter 'x' in their file name.
> "the job didn't offer enough hours of work"

I guess that plays a HUGE role. Like, if you will be working only part-time, with a low wage, no benefits, earning the same (or less) than the unemployment benefit doesn't seem enticing.
A "public square" online designation would effectively be the nationalization of whatever service gets that designation.

I, for one, don't think the US government should be in charge of Twitter.

Taking private companies and forcing them to say certain things is not how I'd like this country to evolve, and as long as the 1st Amendment exists, is not how it will evolve. "Public Square" designations for private companies cannot exist alongside the 1st Amendment, period.
It's not even about government narratives - it's about narratives of executives and owners of tech companies.
Quote them a rate that's 5x what you normally go for and see if they bite. Add a clause where you need to be compensated for the complete duration of the non-compete too. See if they respond.
You are missing the point, they are not decoding semantics. The signals being decoded correspond to imagined motor activations needed to produce the word. It's similar to asking you to mentally rehearse throwing a ball.
A few years back some people got charged for trying to export F-16 manuals to a Russian flight sim company: https://www.standard.net/police-fire/russian-deported-after-...
Also, what if the content wasn't racist when you wrote it?
Unlikely. Smoking was still incredibly common in 1988, as in, still allowed in high schools levels of common. The big push to quit smoking didn't really take hold until around 00.

I'm in the camp of it is something to do with cars. The phase out of the carburetion came around that time. This was a huge win for air quality as carburetors are grossly inefficient. In off throttle situations, like coasting down a hill, they are literally dumping unspent gasoline in the atmosphere. Some of it ignites in the exhaust system (making that notable pop-ping-pop old cars have when off-throttle in low gear), but most is dumped straight in the atmosphere.

This would also explain why the decline happens in the USA & western Europe. And might also explain the gender discrepancy: with men being much more likely to work with and around automobiles as a career.
This is a good thing employers have too much power when negotiating salaries for low end jobs. Results in people working full time but still needing food stamps/government support to survive. If you cant run a business while paying a decent wage your business is not viable.
How does this compare to Mergify? https://mergify.io/
Hitler would be proud of this comment.
> They are such great and imaginative books

Those books are pretty awful. They can't make up their mind whether they belong to sci-fi or fantasy. Sometimes they veer towards hard scifi but then make naive mistakes with current science. The characters are cardboard cutouts, very shallow, and make nonsensical decisions. The general atmosphere is depressing and ends in the complete failure of basically everything.
They also censored that Fauci caused COVID by funding gain-of-function, even though that turned out to be true.

Fauci unbanned gain-of-function, funded the lab which leaked a seemingly engineered virus, and had that banned by the Senate when it emerged what he’d done.

The same can be said about media censorship around Cuomo and Whitmer killing tens of thousands.
We’re not talking about individual choice but an inherent ir/rationality in censorious behavior.

Vast majority of the consumers probably make pragmatic rather than idealistic consumption choices. Eg when you source a new iPhone, you source certain unethical labor practices. When you make use of the US dollar, you make use of some amount of atrocities that built its international purchasing power (eg any of the petrodollar wars). I bet those rarely bother even the most so-called “idealistic” consumers because a) it is a hard calculus to compute b) it is impossible to live when every “impure” thing is removed from use.

The difference with public content hosting is being able to twist arms to make them take down stuff and conform to an image of virtuousness which we narcissistically and psuedo-religiously identify with. It is not about the real damage the contents pose, it is our intolerance to being seen as a “person who can use such sites”. The threat is to our confirmation bias, in this case the confirmation of an idea that there is a clear right and wrong and we are definitely right.
Thank you. This made my day. I didn't feel put-out (well, no more than I'm used to!), but it's refreshing and affirming to see empathy and self-accountability here on HN.

I will try to do better myself. I'm sure I am sometimes guilty of same.
Oh those wonderful things too. Truly SV is the crèche for our present Golden Age.
India is fast turning into an Oligarchy where a few have all access. Indian government itself has been involved in selling the data of its citizens to private corporations. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news...
There is always a line and content that is illegal and the question will always be where that line is drawn.