skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> 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.

One of the things that made the second wave of Spanish flu so lethal was that the normal rules of viral transmission were upended by World War I. Ordinarily, the normal course of viral mutation is for the less lethal strain to be preferentially spread. Instead, soldiers in the trenches who became very ill were sent on trains to crowded hospitals, while those who developed mild cases stayed where they were. I don't want to say it's likely that mass vaccination might have a similar adverse effect, but it seems possible.
When I say “criminal justice system” I’m talking in the context of this article (people who are arrested and prosecuted). Obviously most interactions with the police are with normal people and don’t lead to anything major.

But randomly pick out some sentencing hearings one day at your local federal court. They’ll go over the rap sheet of people who actually go to prison. It’s eye opening.

You can even see this in the criminal justice advocacy materials if you read carefully. I love the ACLU but if you read beyond the headline in many cases it’s quite revealing. I remember a case a few years ago where the headline was some “child” was imprisoned simply for being at a scene where a pizza delivery guy was murdered in broad daylight. Turns out he was actually in a gang, who murdered the guy in cold blood, and the legal theory is that the cops can’t prove which kid actually fired the shots. You can find the legal theory compelling (and I do) while acknowledging that this is the kind of shit that turns up even when social justice types are trying to pick impact cases.

Or heck George Floyd. I think the media overlooked a really important angle on this story that would have spoke to religious people. Floyd was a guy who spent most of his life being a pretty bad person: https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-us-news-ap-top-new...

But he had found Jesus, he was turning his life around and reaching out to kids, and when Derek Chauvin murdered him he cut short what could have been a path to redemption. Reflexively saying “criminals don’t deserve to be murdered” when Floyd’s background comes up is a tautology. Sure. But does pretending that stuff never happened help you understand the real human story of Floyd, Chauvin, and the people in that community? Why making progress on criminal justice reform is so hard even as it’s extremely necessary? Is your phat dismissal and reduction of people to a demons and angels binary persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you?
I do. A candidate for political office being barred from posting campaign clips to YouTube is a threat to our democracy.

Most average people view YouTube as the defacto video portal of the entire internet.
First one with power lines is the 11th one down, "Image Credit Flickr User Camelia TWU".

And in #16 there's https://www.flickr.com/photos/horiavarlan/4884236029/in/phot... and those sure do look like power lines to me.
In a sense then, Norway is a microcosm of all human civilization. Since the early days of humanity we've burned trees, peat, whale oil, petroleum, whatever we could, side effects be damned. And for most of that time, there's been no sustainable plan to move away from such consumption. At least Norway is now using their oil wealth to try to plot an alternative course forward. We're not there yet, but at least they're not pumping oil today AND acting like pumping oil is the future as well.
HTML+CSS, especially CSS, that came from typography, really suck. They result in overcomplicated implementations. The future is for more elegant technologies from past that haven't been recalled yet.
> The only way I can think of fixing this is to use something like audacity's pitch changer that doesn't affect the speed of the sample

Check out Ableton Live’s “Simpler”
Depends on how you get the sample.
This is how good their PR is!

Maybe kidding.
The economics of mass-production don't work as market sizes shrink, you can observe this by comparing MP3 player prices and selection today vs a decade ago.
Klein blue is outside the color gamut that can be represented on normal monitors, so it's physically impossible to get the full impact of it through a picture. It just looks .. deeper.

There are a few flowers that have this property; fuscias, and others with strong UV fluorescence.
>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?

Yes, that's why people are pre-emptively raising the status of the corporations in question as private - to head off the discussion you're tired of hearing.

Despite that, instead of discussing what the proper ambit of content review should exist, 80% of the thread is still debating whether or not editorial control should exist in the first place; the exact same type of boring, rehashed discussion that adds nothing of value.

Now we're here having a meta discussion about the discussion that ALSO adds nothing of value, so it looks like no matter where we go there's no shortage of ink that leads nowhere :(.
Are mining lithium and refining lithium the same thing, or is it more like other metals?
Maybe you aren't winning hearts and minds because you aren't actually offering something people want. Maybe you aren't going to re-kindle any dreams because you are not offering anything worth dreaming about.
"Regular" insulin is derived from pigs. "Human" insulin is synthetically produced.
>Within the law. To be honest, there is very little I see that should be censored beyond CP.

Within the law of which country?

Should copyrighted content be blocked in the US? What about in the Netherlands?

Should Holocaust denying content be blocked in Germany? What about in the US?

Should anti-CCP content be allowed in China? What about outside China?

If you want to do the bare minimum according to the law, you are going to need a different implementation for every country. And even then people in countries with more lax laws are going to think you are acting unethically by censoring content in more restrictive countries and vice versa.

EDIT: I have no idea why a comment that amounts to "different countries have different laws" is being downvoted.
Lesson 14.3 accepts update without any where clause (set all rows)
https://sqlbolt.com/lesson/updating_rows
You said that humanism implies authoritarianism. That's the same kind of non-sequitur.
Yeah, if you can do it economically, having a single source is preferable.
We carry them with us in our genes, that seems to indicate more than just war was going on.
gotta love how people apparently don't like facts so much this comment now has zero points. Insuline is cheap, it's cheap to make, and cheap to distribute, and the US doesn't like cheap when it comes to having a steady supply of "you will buy our drugs, or you will literally die".

Legal hostage taking in this way is uniquely US.
I guess education and honest information would be too radical an approach.

Governments and leaders are concerned that people don't trust them, yet the truth is, they don't deserve to be trusted. When the system is designed to create a placated populace instead of critical thinkers, those in charge are routinely lying and blatantly misleading instead of informing, then it's no surprise people will believe in all kinds of fringe ideas.

Hiding and shunning information can be a temporary band aid, but the inevitable effect is that people will trust official sources even less.
...in the current thread...which is four hours old...and mirrors the comments from others in the US....
People aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The establishment had a near perfect lock on the narrative before the internet became popular. There was a very tight Overton window on TV, radio, and publications that didn't necessarily match what people were thinking about or wanted to hear about. This was intentional.

When the internet broke into the mainstream, it was a strong feature, not a bug, that content was hard to censor, and sites like Google got a lot of their earlier traction due to their results not being gamed or massaged for profit.

You could hear the establishment gears grinding though. They were gonna take back control of the narrative even if it took decades. Well it did, and they have, to a degree. It's only going to keep getting worse as long as they can continue to wrest further control.

Do you think that only leaders of other countries like China want to control what people see, hear, and think? Do you recognize the immense power that comes from narrative control, militarily and financially?

edit: for those downvoting, would you care to point out flaws in my statements?
Exactly what I was thinking as I read that. I've been harassed when visiting friends who live in neighborhoods like that, and don't see it as a positive trait.
> I think your view is skewed

I suspect it's more that we have different definitions of how widely a feeling of alarm should spread before saying this. I agree the absolute number of people who are worried about the problem is small.

I guess I think about it in terms of "what proportion of the population that would be directly involved in solving this problem"? I would suspect that is close to 100%. Anyone involved in space work is aware that we may we wiped out and would not like that to happen. Government leaders are also, I think, aware, but unconvinced that more resource expenditure would be meaningfully helpful. Given how difficult it's been to convince people to deal with a much cheaper & easier problem that is much more obvious and immediate (global climate change) I have trouble critiquing people for being insufficiently zealous about this issue.
Here

LG ads: https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2021/3/10/22323790/lg-oled-tv-...

Samsung connecting to open WiFi: https://forum.developer.samsung.com/t/if-you-choose-to-not-c...

Samsung TV ads (you’ll find more sources, but adweek seemed a pretty ironic choice): https://www.adweek.com/convergent-tv/samsung-ads-debuts-thre...

Samsung, LG, Sony & others spying on what you watch: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/smarter-living/how-to-sto...

Quite a lot to avoid ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Depending, very much, on that balance between usability and security. For the use case in the story, I'd way rather talk about (and write down) incidents 122 through 124 with my team, rather than incidents 549697a9-dd6a-4a90-a5f4-b2ff1a1d9289, d6150929-a692-414b-ba9e-ccbcf5e48a59, and 2756998d-035f-42bc-a97d-4135529e85d9.
Or just that I'm a little more aware?

https://www.google.com/search?q=news+kowtow+-definition+-mea...

That's a google search. I just filter out definitions, references, and the clothing brand. Now look at it. Sure there are examples of the word kowtow used for other things. But its mostly about China. Because in the context of China, the word just suggests itself. But why? What does it add? What does it subtract. No one here wants to wrestle with that. Instead they get defensive.
The study shows that _current_ AirBnB rental units correlate with increased violence _years later_.
And is there really anything wrong with that? Every house doesn't need a milling machine. Why should every house need a general purpose computer?
Check my free Android dating app
Hey everyone, i don’t know if i can promote my app in here but i thought i should try.

I have created this app on my own and i’m a student so honestly i don’t have a budget.

I just created a simple dating app which is completely free. Added a couple of extra functions and you can use them by watching a couple of ad videos.

Sorry again if this isn’t okay to advertise here, but like i said i don’t have a budget and this is my first app. I would love to hear your opinions.

Thanks a lot!
I know there are a ton of people who, like you, want alternatives. Unfortunately nobody is willing to pay for it.

Advertisers (and governments and criminals) pay handsomely for surveillance-driven "free" platforms, but who will pay for the development, maintenance, productization, polish, and support of open decentralized alternatives? Users have been conditioned to believe that software should be free, and the more ideological people in the FOSS movement will tell you it's "not open source" if you don't give it away with no strings attached. I know people who will actually uninstall things if they do not have an OSI-compliant license.

Look at how much work it takes to develop and maintain these centralized systems. Now consider that decentralized systems are more challenging to develop and scale because you have to deeply understand distributed systems instead of just hacking some code to run on one centrally managed 100% trusted platform.

Where is the army of independently wealthy highly skilled developers who are going to do all this unpaid?

I am not optimistic. Nobody pays for freedom, openness, or privacy. All the money and momentum is behind the current user-exploiting paradigm, and now we have a generation of programmers who are learning "cloud native" development and don't even know how to develop things that don't run this way.

Edit:

I once gave a presentation to a room of college kids and was discussing a peer to peer system. A student raised his hand and asked how two devices could communicate this way without "a cloud." He was not aware that it was possible for something to communicate directly with something else over a network without a server.
No one is curating anything. If you want your right-wing search engine, then create it. Google is under no obligation to give you top page rank.
A study of the frequency of memory corruption in rust programs would be useful here. If the real-world frequency is let's say <0.1% of bugs uncovered, then I say this mindset is a blessing. Working with C++ the feeling of paranoia you have with 1/3[1] of bugs reported, that maybe again it's memory corruption, is sucking the energy out of developers.

[1]: That's the frequency of this paranoia creeping in that I observed, not of detected memory corruption, but that too I think would be counted in an integer number of percents IME.
If you want to hedge against devaluation of your currency, then buy land, grow olive trees, not bits.
Rich, complex rules for advanced load balancing
Rainglow: A Demo of Eleventy Serverless
One of the many reasons for defining the natural numbers to begin at 1. I didn't even notice they said integers and thought they said naturals.
I'm not a Rust programmer, so be gentle with me.

What worries me is that when it comes to safety, surely the chain is as strong as the weakest link? You declare one thing unsafe, and then suddenly all bets are off. And maybe you don't even know that what you're doing is unsafe.

But here's an example I pulled from github, which blinks a Raspberry Pi Pico:

// Set GPIO25 to be an output (output enable is set)
p.SIO.gpio_oe_set.write(|w| unsafe {
w.bits(1 << 25);
w
});

Right, but what if you're fiddling with registers that might require atomic operations? Lines such as this seem to be saying "ignore all that, write to the register anyway."

Fearless concurrency, you say: are you sure? How do you know?

Suppose you have an ISR (interrupt service routine) that wants to toggle a GPIO pin. From whence does it borrow the privilege to set the pin?

Surely, at the end of the day, microcontrollers can be characterised as large state machines with global state. That's what they ARE. It's their inherent nature, which you cannot abstract away without it leaking somewhere (at least to do anything useful, anyway).

At least with C/C++ you KNOW you've got a problem, and have to reason about the problem carefully. With Rust, you THINK you've solved the problem, but have you?

"Change My View", as they say on Reddit.

*Update 1* OK, I'm going to press my point on this. I'm looking at the Embedded Rust Book (please remember, I'm not a Rust programmer) at
https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/concurrency/index.html

I'm considering the issue of interrupts here.

" Instead, our interrupt handlers might be called at any time and must know how to access whatever shared memory we are using. At the lowest level, this means we must have statically allocated mutable memory, which both the interrupt handler and the main code can refer to."

"In Rust, such static mut variables are always unsafe to read or write, because without taking special care, you might trigger a race condition, where your access to the variable is interrupted halfway through by an interrupt which also accesses that variable."

RIGHT, but that means that Rust gives me no better assurances than C/C++. Here's their code:

static mut COUNTER: u32 = 0;

#[entry]
fn main() -> ! {
set_timer_1hz();
let mut last_state = false;
loop {
let state = read_signal_level();
if state && !last_state {
// DANGER - Not actually safe! Could cause data races.
unsafe { COUNTER += 1 };
}
last_state = state;
}
}

#[interrupt]
fn timer() {
unsafe { COUNTER = 0; }
}

Then is says "Can you spot the race condition? The increment on COUNTER is not guaranteed to be atomic"

It then solves the problem by showing how to introduce a critical section.

So at the end of the day it's just C with different syntax, and a lot more hoopla. You've made everything mutable and unsafe. Exactly the kind of thing you were trying to avoid in the first place.
i take comfort in the fact that there's no true ideal system, as long as the good bits find light, it's ok, that's how it had to be
Or he is terminally ill and doesn't care if he dies next week or in a few months.
How is the education system today going to help people who went to school in the 1970s?

Conversely, what should we teach children today about the information threats of the 2050s?
This is the key problem with all censorship, however well-intentioned. A person is needed to censor. People make mistakes. Sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. There is a strong dis-incentive to having any transparency or accountability. If there were, you might be held liable for your mistakes and nobody wants that.
I think it's fair to say that, the more pressure there is to meet short-term obligations, the higher the crime rate.

Let's say there was no short-term renting allowed in Bed Stuy. Then, would there be enough supply of affordable housing to meet demand?

What sort of obstacles do projects that introduce new housing supply face in Bed Stuy?
Seems like this is only news for two reasons: 1. tanks are interesting. 2. people get excited about cancelling strangers on the internet over whatever loose pretext they can.

How else can you explain this profoundly mundane story ending up on the front page of a tech news site? What's next, we going to start chiming in on soldiers who don't renew their military IDs in time? Y'all are acting like he leaked plans for the Army's top-secret death ray, or a bunch of videos of helicopters killing civilians, not a boring piece of paper work nobody in the military cared about enough to declassify after decades of service.
I did, and it boosted my confidence 10x at my day job as a PM.

I still work full-time at another startup (again, I like making money) but now I have a good safety net to fall back on (if required) and I know my opinions can lead to successful outcomes.
Even if you are talking only about people prosecuted, "98% shitty people" is ridiculously hyperbolic.

It also, as you note, precludes the majority of police work which was more my point; lots of people make excuses for the excesses of these systems based on this sort of "98%" (or whatever big number) argument; mostly those excuses are pure fertilizer.
There's something fundamentally flawed about the idea that censorship in the name of preventing misinformation is protecting the foundation of democracy.

You cannot have true democracy if people cannot disagree with their governments, they must be able to disagree with any truth or opinion such a government might consider self-evident, just on the off chance they're right.

I should at this point note that Google doesn't directly claim to go quite that far in preventing misinformation, they mostly claim to disallow things that could harm the democractic process (e.g. telling people to vote at the wrong place, their candidate has died, etc.). At least that kind of information is usually agreed upon (if not there are bigger problems than mere misinformation), though they seem to try to include claims of voter-fraud, which is a bit dangerous.
Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy. Nothing is stopping this candidate from posting this on their campaign site, or an RNC affiliated site or even Facebook where most of their supporters are likely to be.
as my professor always said:

steal $100, go to jail

steal $1,000,000,000 pay lawyers so that you give back 200,000,000 and keep the rest.
Build your own cloud with NAS. It’s a game changer.
Each of those civilizations you mentioned rose to the heights of their power by uniting multiple smaller tribes into one larger civilization.
I would much rather live with censorship that can be removed by withholding dollars vs one that requires votes.

Just look at the puritanical rules concerning language and sexuality forced on broadcasters. Those rules are decades old and outdated and will likely remain forever.

When companies fuck up on censorship, the results seem to last only a few years. When governments fuck up, the consequences echo for multiple lifetimes.
I am so tired of seeing this crap. Here is what happened:

People said the lab leak theory was debunked because Trump said it.

Maybe what we should focus on is holding HN posters to some standard of reality and these things won't happen.
I don't trust Google to fully filter information for it's credibility ... so I don't automatically trust things shared on Google drive.

But I don't have to trust that Google won't suppress valid positions drive since there are many alternatives for sharing information beyond Google drive, which isn't meant to primarily host public content in any case.
So it's "lease on life" rather than "lease of life"? Never knew that.
We're trying our best to exterminate certain species of mosquitoes. We haven't done it because we lack the technical ability as of yet.

Also, have you met any Aztec? There are barely any American Indians left compared to the millions there were originally.

Mammuts? All the giant marsupials of Australia that went extinct the moment humans set foot there?

We've been on top of the food chain for very long. Now imagine if we discover another race may take our place and the only option is communication or total obliteration?

I wish it was different, we only have a sample size of one.

But just like the three space ships that first found out about the dark forest and ultimately killed each other, it's what makes most sense from game theory
Can we at least agree on some basic facts? Google does in fact curate search. Where a page is listed does not depend on how many times the link was clicked. Yes?
There are ton of hypotheticals being thrown around here, but'll point out it's easy to suspend oil exploration when

> No oil has been found yet around Greenland

The people of Greenland would probably _not_ be so thrilled if there was a number on this like "$1mm per Greenlander is being turned down". But because there's no actual oil on the table yet, and no dollar signs on it, it's relatively easy to stick to principles.