skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If your services are backwards compatible to talk to each other, then you don't need to release instantly. Making breaking changes is tricky, but you don't need to release everything.
Science failed to predict flood and heat intensity
That means that 1.8M Americans are potentially available to work at any business that can offer more pay and dignity than unemployment. If this labor shortage exists, businesses know what number they need to beat. Is that difficult?
"Point being, Airbnb is a symptom of your neighborhood going to shit, not a cause."

Pretty much all the historical cities and tourist magnets around the world seem to be an exception, unless "becoming even more touristy" === "going to shit".
> Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong and a steward of information

That is exactly what's needed.

When there's no penalty for bullshit, lies tend to self-perpetuate, like viruses.

You may be fixated right now on some half-baked ideal of "free speech" and so on, but the fact is - a lot of people out there can't tell left from right. And in situations such as the current pandemic, when the consequences of spreading bullshit are thousands of deaths, your naive ideas about "freedom" need a reality check.

> truly free-flowing information

Which will then immediately get hijacked by bullshit-spewing AI bots and folks with agendas. See what happened recently with all the "freedom" emphasizing social networks.

What you're proposing is the online equivalent of a country with no military, no police, no laws and no judicial system. This may be fine in some Ayn Rand fanfic novel for young adults, but it's not a reality where anyone would want to live.
You described the community that operates on the assumption that if they dont know you, you are criminal. It is the only way it can work like that. I dont really think it is so valuable. It is what makes people harassed just for walking home or taking random walk.
It's a real problem. It's easier to suppress such content, but the problem is, it just goes elsewhere where it is almost completely unchecked, and it just proliferates in much darker circles as a result, and we have even less exposure as to its true volume.

Maybe there should be more of an effort to reduce peoples' incentive to engage in that sort of behavior in the first place. Why do people join violent extremist groups? Why do people engage with CP? Why do terrorist groups exist? Is it just human nature? Is it a fact that with 7+ billion people we are destined to have millions of people engage in this behavior?

De-platforming horrible material is better than nothing, but it feels like whack-a-mole
"... She, and other scientists, agree climate change is an emergency. But Oxford Prof Tim Palmer told me: "It’s is impossible to say how much of an emergency we are in because we don’t have the tools to answer the question.

"We need a commitment and vision with the magnitude of CERN (Europe's major physics research centre) if we are to build climate models that can accurately simulate the extremes of climate like the Canadian heatwave."
relatively scarce, sure. There are millions of times more of all the resources Earth has between us and any civilization coming from light years away. By the time they needed Earths resources they’d have to have gobbled up large chunks of, if not the whole, Galaxy.
No idea what your comment means. The Austrians begin by looking at the individual. Only individuals can ascribe value to things. Nature does not know that an apple or a house has value - only people do. Individuals thus are the drivers of the economy. Furthermore trying to model the economy and predict the future is a fool's errand - the amount of variables are too complex, and macroeconomics as a discipline is no better than guessing.

Individuals are motivated primarily by self-interest. Within a family people are strongly charitable, within a neighborhood (tribe) somewhat helpful, and beyond that altruism cannot be relied on to power the system forwards. Any system that relies on people to be altruistic to strangers is doomed to failure. Instead, you should create systems where people, by acting in their own self interest, help the larger society.

Capitalism is emergent phenomena - where you ban markets, they spring up organically. This occurs even in the most socialist / communist systems such as Cuba and North Korea. Markets allow people to agree voluntarily to prices based on their own subjective opinions of value.

Within any society that isn't forcing everyone to be perfectly equal by threat of death, differences in wealth naturally emerge. Over time they become pronounced. It is impossible to end inequality without coercion - some people naturally value their leisure time over being productive, and it is unfair to coerce someone to artificially reduce their productivity. There is no such thing as economic equality in any meaningful sense, only equality under the law.
Hacker News is a place for people to discuss interesting things, while being generally associated with Y Combinator, a startup incubator.

I've said this before, and dang has corrected me, but I believe this is a good thing for Y Combinator, because it attracts smart people to the YC brand, and gives YC companies a pool of talent they can pick from to build companies.

The "Hacker" part has always, to me, been about makers, not about ethics per se. I've always found the notion that there is a shared "hacker" set of mores to be kind of curious.

Ripping things apart to see how they work vs. kludging something together to solve a specific problem vs. adversarial digital trespassing for fun and profit -- none of that lends itself, to me, to some specific shared morality. Certainly a few personality traits will show up, but folks trying to build a set of acceptable behaviors out of that will probably not find a ton of consistency across the people who engage in the aforementioned activities.
Birds migrate from one place to the other they don’t live on every continent all year round. Even if we take these though (and as the other commenter said they aren’t the same species in every continent) that still leaves a total of 3 out of how many thousands, millions, of multicellular organisms on the planet.
I personally think nobody should have this kind of power.
Sometimes I think the only reason platitudes like “bring your whole self to work” exist is just to weed out ppl who are dumb enough to fall for it. Never break the act if you wanna stay on top it seems.
> It has always been standard practice to note when something being shown is a reenactment of an event, and not the actual one.

Aren't the lines being read by robo-Bourdain actual things he write and/or said?

I feel like there's a difference there even if it is a bit weird to not credit robo-Bourdain in those instances.
> that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality

Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal. Instead the claim was about a platform acting more like a publisher, in practice.

From a defacto perspective, things that people often call platforms, very much act much different than publishers, in practice.

The person you were responding to is saying that this change, from the previous status quo of platforms acting neutrally, is a problem, but didn't bring up anything to do with the law.

The fact that this stuff is legal, to become less neutral, is in fact precisely the issue!

EX: the following statement "the issue is that the impartial nature of the internet is disappearing"

Is a description of how things work, in practice, that has nothing to do with the law, and instead having to do with how these entities act in practice.

> Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.

Yes it is a thing that is happening. It just has nothing to do with the stuff you brought up. In the past, Google acted differently. It has nothing to do with it being legal to act differently.

The actual, more interesting thing though, is how this will effect Future laws though.

In reality, colloquial called platforms, acting more like colloquial called publishers very much could cause changes in future laws.
Do people have a canine MDR1 gene ?
I'm not trying to equivocate here (or be combative, I hope this is an interesting discussion for both of us!). I'm being serious: I consider downvoting to be "opposing distribution" of a statement by definition, since it limits the distribution, although perhaps not very effective if done by yourself.

> regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect.

I disagree, and I think I'm in the majority to have more outcomes-based ethics [1]

What I'm trying to get across is that you are "politically active", whether you think you are or not. "Activism" can literally involve just a bunch of friends on an online platform upvoting and downvoting. Even just a small group of people doing this can even be effective censorship in certain contexts, such as local elections. Sure, Google may have more cost-effective means of censorship --- larger political campaigns have to pay firms LOADS to bury stories or control online discourse without access to the power Google has --- but it's still the same result, just a matter of who calls the shots and cost-efficacy.

You might argue that controlling discourse like this is not censorship or unethical based on your definition, but as you said it can have the same intent and has the same potential effect, so to another perspective, perhaps one that places less value on the USA constitution, it most certainly is.

[1] About 90%, in the case of a survey question about the trolley problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Survey_data
> Much like an immune system, we need to be exposed to nonsense so that we're constantly vigilant.

No: much like an immune system, we need to be exposed to vaccines (i.e. education on how to spot deception, knowledge of what scams are currently going on). Enough people trying to deceive you, and eventually someone will succeed.
It's obviously rational otherwise you wouldn't have brought up legality. We already do this and agree that it is rational.
That headline is literally my point.

"It Was Premature To Rule Out A Lab Leak" === We do not have enough evidence to definitively rule it out.
This distinction never mattered. Any discussion of the theory besides refuting it as "debunked" was banned on Facebook.
It's not indexed for some reason. Even in the provided list of craters.
I’m tempted to make a bunch of honeypot accounts just to see how Orwellian and/or gameable their system is.

What will trigger it? Fan pages to Trump/Qanon? Antivaxxer propaganda? The German federal police paper on how to clandestinely manufacture heroin? Or maybe just a 20mb text file with the “卐” character?!
Discipline Strategies to Teach Kids Classic Manners
This makes sense to me. Very few of us have the resources to maintain, for example, the kind of globally synced (way beyond typical NTP) clock infrastructure that Google has (TrueTime[1]).

[1] https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/true-time-external-con...
Private equity groups are private. My uncle’s construction company is private. Google isn’t private in any sense that isn’t confusing. Why not just say that the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to corporations? That seems clear to me.

And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really? Isn’t it more likely it’s a tired debate stopper?
Right. I personally never thought it was that complicated.

Once a company is classified as a public utility (I believe Google is) it should be forced to host all legal content. You tell me what's illegal and I can safely tell you it can't be hosted by Google.
Banning misinformation isn't gonna stop the idiots that would believe it, it's gonna give them reason to go further down the rabbit hole.

It's the Streisand effect.
until you experience the problems yourself, you won't believe me, anyway, no matter what evidence I provide.

it is way too easy to critique an approach that led to a problem that hasn't happened to you, and is described to you by someone else.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/p-programming-... makes the case better than I can on why it's important to have the specification and implementation come from the same source as opposed to maintaining two and then verify via traces that they're compatible.

But definitely worth doing (like Jepsen does) to find problems in the implementation.
These stock arrangements are pretty surreal. Buying shares in SNAP gives you zero say the operation of the company, but they make up for this by also giving you zero dividends. I'm not sure what the point is in owning the shares at all, it feels like the only value in owning the shares is that you might find another sucker willing to pay even more for them in the future.
hopefully they die sooner, rather than later. ive never signed one, never will.

literally walked away from business deals and job contracts because of this.

try to restrict me into the future beyond our agreement and you are not worth my time. don't tell me i cant feed my kids the best way i know how and we can always come to a deal, otherwise you are not my friend. i aint that desperate to make others wealthy. :X
I'm using Vimwiki, and pushing everything to a gitlab wiki repo. I've gone through just about every knowledge base/note taking app and service out there and this is where I've most recently landed. Using plain markdown files ensures that everything is portable, and if one day I want to move it elsewhere, I can. Pushing the markdown files to the gitlab wiki means that it's also available on all of my devices. The added benefit of having a well documented and diffable history of all changes is pretty nice, as well.
The "bitcoin is not money" argument seems unlikely to work. There are people selling things for bitcoin. Not universally, but enough places that I don't see a court accepting the argument that it doesn't act like money.

The "selling bitcoin is not transmitting money" seems more likely to me, at least as long as the sums are small. If they're selling more than $10k worth of bitcoin then it sounds like they're engaging in banking, if not money transmitting.

But if they're selling a lot of bitcoins, they know perfectly well that it's a mechanism for moving money around. The fact that they don't know the destination doesn't make it not money laundering. If people are bringing large sums of money to some dipsticks rather than buying it on the open market, they're almost certainly trying to avoid visibility.
> What's the difference between the image of virtue and just virtue?

What’s the difference between a real car and a perfect cardboard replica? One has functionality and interiority. The other is just exteriority.

In the King Midas story, he wants everything to be mindlessly golden and thus turns them into unusable shiny crap. He got the golden exterior alright, with none of the real goldenness, goodness they would afford him.
I did not imply that at all.
Ah, but how do you know you're not the one believing crazy wrong and dangerous things? All those terms are highly relative and if your answer is argument by authority, well ...
It will get really fun when one side has the "experts" on their side and can have them vouch for the authenticity of something.
Together we’ve raised more than $75,000 for Let’s Encrypt
TOOM – Portrait Mode Doom for DOS PCs [video]
While usually it's just a cheap saying, I literally laughed out loud at your comment. The delusion is incredible.
I just can't stop reading this ...
> A just basically killed off non-competes (1 year limit, narrow scope both in terms of work and geography).

That hardly seems like killed-off. In my experience, this exact sort of thing has been what I have been able to get, AT BEST, companies that required non-competes to change to, and even THEN, they were hugely disruptive. It's one of the reasons that I have nearly three decades of experience and almost never any two companies in a row in the same vertical.

This is categorically not killing off non-competes. It's barely even impacting them. It's just politically-correct "non-compete killing theater."
I agree. Further, almost all of the blue channel in this image is from the white clouds or nearly black water. There's no other major source of blue.
That's not censorship though. Threats are what people are forced to do when they cannot censor you, as censorship is much more direct. And DDoS attacks aren't speech.
There are a few cases of this happening, but it's not common. If you intend to host "problematic" content pick a more understanding host or colocate.
What happened to regulation of private companies?

Easy answer. The modern GOP happened.
It's definitely a cost premium buying the console versions of indie titles, and it's not usable for strategy games or twitch shooters where you have to have a mouse. And obviously no mods or free multiplayer.

But if those things aren't a consideration and/or your main jam is single player action adventure, going console is a no-brainer.
My biggest fear isn't technical, it's cultural. Computing doesn't feel like it's winning hearts & minds. Computing gets further & further away, less and less personal, less intelligible, more mystical every year. We accept more magic into our lives, & the sense of engagement, the sense of ownership, the idea of personal computing feels like it's fading.

I'm techno-optimist, but there's going to be such a huge lag between the wins we start to make, the re-free-ing up of computing, & any significance or adoption. We need to re-liberate computing, make the technical victories, before we can even begin to fight the real general-purpose computing war. The dream of computing needs to be re-kindled.
I quit smoking pot when it started interfering with my work. Not in a “I’m gonna get fired if I carry on smoking” way. But I was finding it if harder and harder to get in the same coding mindset when stoned and when I was sober, which lead to me rewriting code because it was like two different people were working on the same bit of code at the same time.

I was a heavy smoker back then (would roll two joints at the end of the night, one before I slept and one to “wake and bake” with) and just knocked it on the head.

I will still have a joint on special occasions (basically when I’ve been out with friends who still smoke) but I treat those times like a night of heavy drinking and try to make sure I’m not planning to work the next day as I’m not normally in the mood to code the next day being a “very very light smoker” these days I find it hits me harder these days then it used too, but that could also just be age :-p
I haven't read from them, but as a general thing, GoF research is very directional, so in practice the experiments will pressure a virus to gain a function, but the rest of the functions are usually impacted to a large extent due to the lack of evolutionary pressure.

So you may do selection on virions that target better certain receptors in certain human cells to infect them, and that's useful to know of possible evolutions of a wild virus, but in parallel it might be losing environmental resistance (temperature range, UV light), or maybe damage the expression of some vital protein, or become too pathogenic and die along with the host.

By all means, one could try to perform GoF in live humans to ensure there's no LoF, but that limits enourmously the speed of the research, plus it's usually forbidden to experiment in humans these days.
OP is not from the USA. Income inequality is a thing, and properties are not ultra-expensive-compared-to-salary like in the US. Also, programmers often make a lot of money in some countries. My apartment was fully paid when I was 27, all with money from working for this one this one Big Corp which gave me a nice salary.

Also, they may have inherited it.
The problem isn't that one company has made its own decision on what to ban. The problem is that the White House is literally compiling a list and telling all the social media companies who to ban. This is censorship by proxy.
> I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive.

I'll give you the other perspective on the doom-erism:

People preaching about the inevitable extinction of humankind just provide ammunition/"strawmans" against progressive climate policies because these doom-prophecies are obvious bullshit and everyone not in an echo bubble knows it.

Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points-- because it IS BULLSHIT. Climate change is NOT going to lead to human extinction, and preaching this just steals credibility and hinders much more than it helps by polarizing society/preventing consensus.

As for the nuclear threat:

> only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822

First: These are metropolitan areas, not cities. One warhead per area is not even going to kill a fraction of the people.

Consider: Tokyo metro region is 14000 km^2. Fireball size for a 10Mt warhead is <20km^2 (no larger warheads are in use and there would be no point). The highest estimate I found (3E9 victims) assumed 3 warheads per region I think, which is pretty similar to the numbers you came up with.

Taking all the aftereffects into account, you'll maybe get past the 50% population mark, but that is still not human extinction.
I think CGS boils down to smart links between components, which may include SQL-like automatic checks: deleting components that refer to deleted components or components owned by the deleted component.
> right, businesses are all malign and evil, and they could raise their prices by 6% (without losing any business), but they just haven't, because they prefer to... have an excuse to pay less?

Let's assume that the reason you'd supposedly lose business with higher prices is due to competition not raising their prices. If you're struggling to find workers such that you have to raise prices to cover better wages, then it stands to reason your competitors are in the same boat, so either they keep struggling due to lack of labor or they raise their prices to match. Alternatively, they have a much more efficient business than you and you should go under anyway. Nobody owes you a successful business.

Now let's assume that the reason you'd supposedly lose business with higher prices is due to people not being willing to pay that much for your product. Well, if your business revenue can't even afford to pay the labor that keeps it running than your business is a failure and should go under. Nobody owes you a successful business.

I absolutely do not subscribe to the idea that the purpose of society should be to ensure there are enough desperate people to fill labor positions for untenable businesses.
I always wonder if it will be challenging to get people used to the idea of paying for these services from a non-Google provider. Although Google hoovers up cash hand over fist (hence the high salaries), having a well-polished set of apps that work as well for low cost is going to be a hard pill to swallow for so many folks that are just used to "free email" by now.

I host my own email and pay about a dollar a month and my non-tech family members look at me like I'm some fool for not using the free stuff. Conversations about the value of data just go woosh over their heads :|