skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Apple claims that there is a "one in one trillion chance per year of incorrectly flagging a given account". I'm calling bullshit on this.

Why? You can get any false positive rate you want if you don't care about the false negative rate.

It seems likely that that was a design criterion and they just tweaked the thresholds and number of hits required until they got it.

The last analysis on HN about this made the exact same mistake, and it's a pretty obvious one so I'm skeptical about the rest of their analyses.

It is nice to have some actual numbers from this article though about how much CP they report, the usefulness of MD5 hashes, etc.

Edit: reading on, it seems like he just misread - it sounds like he thinks they're saying there's a 1 in a trillion chance of a false positive on a photo but Apple are talking about an account which requires multiple photo hits. The false positive rate per photo might be 1 in 1000 but if you need 10 hits then it's fine.
Is there any sign something will happen at COP26? Or will we just carry on with the same? Can you imagine what the anti-vax nut jobs will do when confronted with the reality of extremely expensive everything and less of it? For example moving the food system over to local produce with very little meat would help a lot but there is no political ability to make such a change.
Different definitions of "good job" I expect. Making something useful / effortless / fast / a joy to use etc. vs making something that boosts your key performance metrics.

Having the friends sidebar always there probably increases engagement with Spotify's social growth strategy which boosts network effects and drives recurring revenue or something. It's all stuff you can plot on graphs and show that you're being effective.
The GDPR explicitly states that only natural persons have data subject rights, not legal persons.
How about building more nuclear electric stations? The nuclear energy production hasn't increased in the US for past 30 years, while oil and gas have exploded. Retards. Saame thing in EU - closing down the plants in Germany and Spain
We should send invoices to sites that send data across set thresholds.

What's that, bloated news site? You don't want a bill of 10 USD per page served? Cut your bloat.
A lot of the comments (not all) really personalize the issue by using Jeff Bezos as the villain, when it's the system and laws that have allowed him to capture so much wealth that is the problem. And IMHO, that's the part that needs addressing, by putting a progressive tax in place.

Jeff's not the enemy - he's been amazingly successful within the rules that we as a society have made. Some of these rules are oppressive and bad and we should fix them.
Birth rates are falling across the board, but stopping it faster either requires severely authoritarian measures or increasing economic safety, which counters the benefits. And reducing birth rates too fast sets us up for disaster too.
I wonder how much energy we waste on pedantry.
That would require demurrage which is never going to happen. I'll be honest. It's not demurrage itself that we need, it's just much easier to implement. What we need is a linkage between the lifetime of debt and money. Defaulting on debt should destroy money. I.e. money is only valid as long as the contract (the debt) that created it is valid. Given a sufficiently advanced electronic currency you would track the expiry of every single dollar. The lender then would decide whether he wants to extend the expiry of the dollar and thereby extend the due date of the debt.

The fundamental problem with short term thinking (positive time preference) is that people want to "flee" into fictional wealth. Rather than build a long lasting monument (companies like blue origin count as monument) they prefer to increase a number on a balance sheet in the form of a bank account. What makes fictional wealth so attractive? As mentioned above money is just the other side of a debt contract. By withholding your money you extend the debt. In other words, a lot of people promise to work for you. Having idle servants is the entire reason behind accumulating money. If you truly wanted to achieve full employment then all money earned must be spent eventually, to be more specific all debts must be fulfilled. It would mean that your wealth cannot exist in the form forced coercion of other people. Employees would still come and work in your companies but they would leave each day with a fair share of the wealth they helped create. All your wealth would have to be long lasting and the environment, which is the longest lasting form of prosperity, would be considered part of your wealth.

Ancient Egypt had something closer to a "grain standard" meaning that farmers deposit grain in a storehouse where they receive something akin to a coupon which you can trade in for grain. Their money is representing a claim to a spoiling good! The horror! The complete antithesis of the gold standard. Just imagine what a backwards society that must have been! Of course the truth is everyone remembers ancient Egypt as an advanced civilization for its time.
Of course the biggest emitters are industrial. Anything we attribute to individuals pales in comparison to the transport industry, production of goods like steel and concrete, resource extraction, power generation and production of consumer goods.

Telling consumers to cut back on X is essentially passing the back and making consumers feel bad without actually addressing the bulk of emissions.
> it's only a matter of time until small indie web services (think of the Fediverse) just can't exist in a lot of places anymore

I expect they will simply become P2P E2EE darknets eventually, meaning there won't really be a "service" anymore. Matrix already has E2EE and is actively working towards P2P.
What do you mean "we"?

Regular people don't ask for this stuff. It is presented to them as a gift, and they take the gift because of this or that specific reason. Don't blame regular people; they aren't the ones actively trying to keep the growth machine rolling.
This is completely missing the point of why one should fight surveillance. Surveillance harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
I love how corporations can pollute the absolute shit out of the atmosphere, but when it comes to me having a steak, I’m the bad guy, this is one of the biggest cons of our time.

Could you imagine how much more damage cheap air travel, coal fired power generation etc has done compared to people eating food ?

Do you know who eats all the beef they like ? Oil company executives.
How to Keep Up with Linux Bugs? Jump Upstream
> I just want to add, that so many people buy in to the idea that the solution to gas powered cars is electric cars. But I feel like the significantly climate friendlier solution is bicycles and trains.

And I want to say: yes. Everyone knows that. I don't get why this point has to be raised every time the topic of EVs and climate intersect.

EVs aren't competing with bicycles and trains, they're competing with ICE cars. Both for market and attention. If bicycles could work instead of EVs where people want to introduce EVs, they would've already replaced ICEs in that role.

To use a software analogy, bringing up bikes and trains here reads like, "You all talk about replacing this legacy component with an API-compatible alternative that's an order of magnitude faster -- but you know what would be even better? Rewriting the whole codebase so that we don't need that component anymore."
It's also on VirusTotal
I find messaging like this on climate change poor, and possibly counter productive.

There need to be concrete solutions offered, be that nuclear, wind, solar, electric vehicles etc..
Link to a paywalled "research paper" where they claim they can stick some metal on 3d surfaces. No mention of other parts (resistors, trabsistors, microcontrollers). The hard part (which seem not to be addressed in this paper) is not having metal but soldering electronic devices on this substrate.
Even something like a small faring, like the little plastic windshield on a motorbike should increase speed. One concern though, is that it would mitigate the advantage of drafting and totally change the strategy of cycling as it exists today (eg. re. the pelotón and breakaways).
Taxing the ultra-wealthy is possible, and they still get to be ultra-wealthy afterward. We already do it, the discussion is only “how much?” and what to do with the money. That’s a tractable problem. (Incidentally - the rich have been winning this argument for a long time, as their effective taxes fall and fall and fall.)

On the other hand, proving that a specific piece of income is “economic rent” - I think that’s intractable and only produces loss on both sides. It’s a fight to the death for the accused, a hill they’ll die on. The idea is appealing at a surface level but I can’t see any way forward with it.

Tax people who can afford to be taxed. The alternative is hardly going to work.
We don't even need a carbon tax per se; we just need consumption based tax system (as the US had until 1913), instead of a productivity based tax system.
Solutions to the climate crisis can all be broken down into smaller and smaller parts — small enough to be ignored — or small enough to be easily fixed.

For web developers that 5% is our responsibility, and we have the means to change it in ways many people cannot.

As for fonts — yes I'm sure it would make a big impact. Font files are a decent chunk of average page weight.
I've noticed again and again that some people just seem unable to accept the vast amount of evidence that has been piling up in front of their eyes for the last forty years. They do not seem able to process the data, primarily because they cannot accept the conclusion this would lead to, namely that the global human civilization faces a collapse.

This does not have to do with education it seems. Lots of school smart people seem fall into this category and conversely I've had uneducated lower-class people come to that conclusion a long time ago.

There's a saying that a new paradigm does not get accepted into mainstream because of it convincing its detractors but because they all die in the end.

I think this is somehow the same with the climate crisis. The detractors and denialists will never accept any evidence that we put in front of their eyes; they cannot accept the conclusion, no matter what.
I realized this additional perverse thing about trying to improve the world by riding a bike, as an individual:

In our market economy designed to get people to consume cars, your foregoing car ownership actually just makes it a little more comfortable for all the car owners out there sharing the road with you. You reduce traffic for them, reduce the wear on the infrastructure, you drive down the price of cars and gas, and you free up a parking space.

Of course this is all on the infinitesimal scale of your own individual influence on the world, its ecosystem, and the economy you live in, but so is your actual reduction in fossil fuel consumption if you give up driving.

Point is, there needs to be something a lot bigger than your individual choice as a consumer. We need an economy that prices in the environmental impact of cars, and I’m pretty sure we need the state for that.
I think the broader problem is the human mental condition. One of the largest contributors to global emissions is large scale factory farming but how many people are going to stop eating at McDonalds?

Point being: people’s habits need to change across the board, but yet they argue that policy makers have no right dictating what they can/can’t do…

If you ask a big business owner to halt production in the name of climate change, will they? Hell no.

The government can squeeze people financially though so it literally is up to them to force businesses to comply lest they will exhaust their finances for non compliance.

I dunno it’s a pretty interesting dilemma though…
The idea of societal benefit is very nebulous. It sounds like your idea of it is very different to mine by the fact that you believe in an absolute answer to it.

How do you measure something like societal benefit?

I'm sure we could agree that eradicating disease is very beneficial, but would we disagree about the entire tourism and entertainment industry as a whole?

I can guarantee we have different opinions about the value of things. That's why we should be free to make our own choices. We don't need everyone in the world to help define what "societal benefit" is for them, they can do it every time they pay for something out of their own pocket.

(There is one thing that I think fulfills your criteria though, flights for holidays. They contribute more, and increasingly more, carbon emissions than bitcoin does while delivery little "societal benefit" - whatever that means. However, I'm not arguing anything here because I think it's morally wrong to focus on specific activities that affect a minority of people. And yes, banning taking flights for holidays would only affect a small minority of people globally.)
Definitely! Vegetarian food is a big part of the solution. Methane from the absurd amount of meat produced is really bad, and also contributes around 10x CO2e.
We have chemical plants all around the world where a leak of one kind or another can (and has) cause a terrible catastrophe. We've gotten to the point where large scale incidents are at least rare even dealing with highly reactive chemicals.
The only way scientists can claim that earth is not flat, scientifically, is to prove it. Consensus has nothing to do with it. And the whole point of science is that our knowledge of the world is never unequivocal, we always need to prove things. We don't know that the earth is round because scientists agree and they're really sure. We know it's round because anyone can do an experiment that proves it.
I haven't checked the figures put forward here but anything that encourages the industry to improve site performance - and an indirect result of these efforts seems to do just that - is greatly welcomed. Now when you want to argue against the embedding of another framework/library and the usual performance reasons don't cut it, just say it's about sustainable design.
Arcflash's Handheld Gauss Rifle pre-orders at $3,775
It's an editorialization of the word. Any riot involving a fight with cops would qualify if you stretch it that far.
The review count has become a red flag for me. I regularly see extremely niche items that might sell 20000 units over 5 years with 20000 reviews.
Those poor presenters. Looking at all that brightly lit green all day would give me a headache. Also what a drab general view for all the staff.
The cited workers in the article are in Colombia and Albania. I somewhat doubt they're liberal arts graduates or competing with liberal arts graduates. They're competing with whatever next recently failed war-torn state can produce enough passable English speakers once their own country starts to develop a real middle class that can demand things like not having surveillance cameras installed in their houses by their employers.
The only think to consider is that relevant discussions are still more important than gamification. You want people to post because they have something to say, not to spam nonsense just to get virtual points.This is why upvotes/like work well, they are a gamification feature that forces people to post content valued by others. So make sure that the gamification features improve content, not make it worse.
It’s just temporary storage, as the trees die and release all the carbon back as they decompose (worse, they release a bunch of methane in the process).

Also they burn as the climate changes: the Dixie fire destroyed a bunch of carbon offset forest (putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere). Which can be replanted and new certificates issued for the same land. Brilliant!

I have nothing against planting trees and they can have some temporary (but slow) value, but they don’t really make a dent on fossil fuel consumption which is centuries of sequestered carbon being released every year.
Also note that some of them are easy and you can simply do them today. Buying green energy might not be as good as ditching your car altogether, but it's a lot easier so you might as well start with the quick wins.

And the category of buying shiny new stuff is missing. It's a big part of consumer-influencable emissions, though it's admittedly even harder to make a significant impact on than ditching cars after you bought your essentials second-hand (where possible/reasonable of course). Pushing for products to be produced in a climate-neutral fashion (voting with your wallet) would definitely be something though.

Edit: wait, Sweden. How is space heating not on that list? Surely where the majority of the Swedes live is not too cold for heat pumps with perhaps a bit of aid from pure electrical heat creation for a few days per year, is it?
Hah, I'm not from the US (I'm actually from one of those European nations you mention) and I see it from a different angle - the tax burden on higher income earners here is so enormous that people will find ways to work less to keep their earnings down, as the government just takes most of it. It has become a problem with doctors particularly - they will often opt to work fewer hours in order to earn less, as it simply isnt worth the extra time. This has made doctor access harder, which is a double disaster when you realise that the tax payer is the one who paid to train them in the first place. It is hard to argue that people paying tax in that bracket aren't doing enough already, and shouldn't be weary of any proposed increases in taxation.
A map of half a billion connections in a tiny bit of mouse brain
Yeah, those were great days.

MTV was always on the tv at the bowling center, kids would hang around for hours. If somebody had a house party, MTV was sure to be on.

It was a big part of growing up at the time.
That's absolutely true, but that's not some nefarious agent being evil. That's just society as a whole not assigning a lot of value to unskilled labour.
No StartTLS – A Security Analysis of STARTTLS in the Email Context
Interesting use of the word "Sustainable", where I would expect a topic named "sustainable web design" to be about unsustainable employment practices, and unsustainable frameworks - both of which the industry is promoting unsustainably.
GR-1 Anvil – world’s first handheld Gauss Rifle
> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc).

http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...

But the tax is probably more important still. Also, political action.
Microeconomics uses formal logic and deduction, typically given assumptions and definitions around rational actors. I’m a layman but my partner is studying economics and I help her out a bit with logic and math stuff when it comes up, but I don’t know how prevalent these concepts are beyond academics.
> Then HN taught me that any company storing images on their infrastructure in the US must report pedophilic images to the US government.

It's certainly been going on for the past decade.

For example:

>a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account

https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le...
How about makign a masive push to gen 4 nuclear reactors that can burn what we today call "waste" and then dump coal?
Some would disagree with this on the moral point that its basically a call for genocide, whether that is intentional or not is hard to tell.

I'd disagree on the facts though. There's already such a wild difference in carbon intensity between two humans, that it would be ridiculous to suggest that the first step would be to remove humans rather than the activities that make that difference (and are sometimes wasteful, inefficient or counterproductive)
A recent strategy is to add a carbon tax on imports in the form of tariffs. I don't think the yellow vests protest will go up in arms over it, especially since the second effect of tariffs is to encourage national production. It will effect french farmers that rely on exports, but since those tariffs are import taxes that reside in other countries there is not much point to protesting to the french government.

What the yellow vests protest demonstrated is that carbon taxes need to be designed so that individual voters are less impacted directly. Add a carbon tax on power plants and energy prices might go up, but if you already have 50% wind or nuclear, the effect will be quite damped. If energy prices is already quite unstable with huge spike and dips, the effect might not even be noticed in the noise, and the critical application of blame can be directed to the weather when the price do go up.
> shouldn't be legal unless the company pays rent for said room that is turned into a work place(market price for the area)

You're trying to make compromises which is dangerous if the opponent aims high to begin with, with an unreasonable take.

Even that should not be legal, and it actually is not legal in The Netherlands to monitor employees like that. It has to be in proportion.

For example, if laptops keep getting stolen at Friday afternoon, it makes sense to monitor who's there at that time, and use devices to catch the thief red handed. But it is not appropriate to force employees into Big Brother 2.0 with cameras and microphones.

Right now, students are forced into such submission as well (via forced remote studying due to COVID), and I very much doubt it holds up in court.
The vast majority of the world is not accustomed to a car-forward culture like the slowly decreasing majority of the U.S. is.
If the cost of fuel for your emergency generators results in people dying, you have much bigger issues.

Besides, the cost could be born by others similar to how we have duty-free fuel here for farm equipment and similar.
They are not communicating that because they don't want people to lose hope and give up, even when that's probably the rational response.

As you say, these changes are already "baked in" and the natural environment is only to get more hostile to humans from here on out.
I've noticed this happening with game reviews as well. Even if a review is well written and quite long, it will include one random screenshot where it's not even entirely clear what you're looking at, or a link to stock trailer. It's so weird to me, I used to peruse reviews when I was younger and look at screenshots to get a feel for what the game looks like, and now we have seemingly unlimited space for pictures on online articles but there's fewer, not more of them.
Interesting read. Sometimes I wonder if the folklore of dragons were perhaps inspired by dinosaurs.
> Nothing short of Florida disappearing under the sea is going to make any difference

That won't make a difference; Liberals will blame the Floridians themselves for being conservative, and Conservatives will say it was an inevitable part of God's Plan, that saying it shouldn't have happened is a criticism of His Judgment, and that saying that it was caused by humans is claiming the type of power that only belongs to God.
Because they reset the records to reflect the redesigned javelins. The current world record is ~6 metres less than Hohn's throw...
The tool is just hilariously easy to abuse, in the west it "may" be limited to child porn, in some countries it might be images featuring gay sex, political dissent, parodies or other kinds of crimes against the regime.
Amazon appears to allow this, judging from their inaction every time I report it.