skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd urge anyone who finds this behaviour unacceptable to contact the UK's CMA - the regulator responsible for competition.

They have an ongoing investigation into Google and Apple's practices with regards to app stores (and mobile platforms in general) [1], and have been looking for evidence on the topic of competition in app stores, and dominance.

While the UK is just one country, the CMA has a wide mandate to act on competition matters and has announced their preliminary findings on the merger of Facebook and Giphy, which (in short) recommend a forced sale of Giphy to prevent potential future anticompetitive moves, such as through terms of service. They have a particular current interest in digital markets, and are forming a new unit specifically to deal with tech antitrust issues (the digital markets unit)

While the CMA public consultation on the Apple/Google mobile platforms work has closed, their investigation team can be contacted via the email inbox listed at [1]. When engaging with regulators like this (for anyone not familiar), it is helpful if you explain why a particular move has harmed you, and can give examples or any available evidence about it, and explain the impact that it has had on you, and the impact on the wider ecosystem as a result.

I'm sure other regulators are looking into this, but for those who are unhappy about this situation, I'd urge you to contact a regulator. If your own national regulator isn't looking into it, there's no reason not to contact the UK one (or indeed any other), and explain your concerns and help them with finding evidence - often for policy and enforcement teams, getting evidence together is the hard part of their job, and I can say from experience they do read their emails.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-gi...
Beer Mode and Coffee Mode
Far fewer people means far less environmental destruction.
Urg I completely agree. My college had a good mix of richer kids and middle class ones, and you could always tell their background because the richer ones would penny-pinch everything. They'd ask you to pay a couple dollars for gas if you went to the grocery store together, or one of my friends bought a couple of decorations for the our shared house and asked us to pitch in for it. If you went with one of the poorer people there would be a sort of understanding that you might split a pizza together later and so you don't have to pay for gas now, and felt much more charitable. It was interesting how stark the difference always was.
Uh, no. Science has been _screaming_ for a carbon tax. Eat all the meat and drive all you want, but be prepared to pay up for the externalities that have been “free” so far.
That's literally how perceptual hashes work. Two images that look similar to each other will have the same, or similar, hashes[1][2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28091750

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110159
And in doing so they cited a linguist about philosophy.

And it doesn’t matter anyway - thankfully we use science now and not philosophy to determine truth.
I've been hearing the 'it's a natural cycle' argument for decades. The arguments haven't shifted, it's just that more recently the warmer weather has prompted anecdotal arguments for climate change ("See! It's warmer! Global warming is real!"), and the 'natural cycle' argument is the more relevant rebuttal to that.
As mentioned in TFA, Google does not allow non-taxable donations through Play, and requires that you use a 3rd-party processor for those.
This may be a bit too harsh for no-mask people, but seems like a reasonable strategy to deal with no-vax people.
Might be more "politically efficient" to extract it though.
I think there is a misunderstanding. If a battery solution is going to produce revenue outside of subsidizes it need to generate power. The number I would look towards is how many time the battery need to be charged and then discharged in order to repay the operational and initial construction costs. No discharge would mean no revenue and so either I am misunderstanding you or you me.

If the cost can be reduced so much that a single discharge is all that is required to both repay the production cost and charge costs (assuming reasonable sell price for the energy) then it would be like a fuel and could be stockpiled as much as could be expected to be used.

If the technology is so much in early development that there aren't much concrete numbers, could you at least give a suggestion about where the costs are right now? How far the economics of nuclear is the technology?

For context of why I am asking this, my country has set the date 2030 as the year when no more IC cars might be sold. We do not have a date for IC power plants and we really should have. It is wrong to continue to burn fossil fuels just because the alternatives are more expensive.
how is this made?
Every time I see a headline like this I think, "ok, let's dig deeper here and find out what actually happened." But no, in this case, this is actually what happened, and it's complete garbage. In fact it's even worse than the headline.
The situation brings to mind Milton Friedman.
It sounds like they are asking for donations on their website, not through the app. Do the terms of service really extend past the app to the website for the project?
How do you know Phrodo_00 isn't an AI?
How about nano? It's very simple. https://linuxize.com/post/how-to-use-nano-text-editor/
Check == Scanning, because to create the output, the hash function needs to “scan” the whole blob.
When I read Lovecraft's stories, I used to have trouble believing people would willingly worship an uncaring force that was going to kill them just like the others. After the past few years, it's gotten easier to understand.
Now go read about the Triassic-jurassic extinction event, because the process of reaching those 5-10 degrees is the scary part.
As we scale our systems and people scale fast, the problems become amplified. We need specific teams solving those problems.

Dev Productivity becomes a problem, microservices cause reliability issues, managing scale requires other systems etc. It all adds up.
Looking at small number of samples from one place for a limited amount of history without understanding the pattern of weather you are in.

Argumenting global climate change from your local experience does not work.

It only works when:

* you can measure things globally (you measure the effect)

* you understand relation between the greenhouse gasses and the measured global climate change (causation)

Fortunately, we have both. We both measure temperature pretty much everywhere and we understand the underlying mechanism of the change even if we can't exactly predict how the chaotic system will be have in the future.
Why are geoengineering efforts not more popular? I thought that what Bill Gates and co were doing with the chalk dust in the atmosphere was a good idea. I think there are myriad ideas along these lines that would go a long way towards combating climate change while also not killing a large swath of economic activity.
With T2 ? Or with T1 ?
>But the fact it exists in the country with the largest per-person capita of CO2 emissions

I have a feeling that you're not talking about all the people rolling coal in Palau. US isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to carbon emissions per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
They can.
Largest economy on earth.
Just put your money where your mouth is.
there are, at most, two groups.
Technically true but not really relevant.
you have to plan for the world we live in not the world you want. Gullible people are a fact of life. Blaming them does nothing productive
How does that work in the Indian diaspora abroad, when someone is discovered doing illicit trade?
I think hostage negotiators have a lot to teach here.
There’s a lot I wish I could write here. But it wouldn’t change your mind and no doubt you’ve been told it before.

Trump was a net negative for the USA in a lot of metrics. You can cherry pick some, but ultimately the swamp was not drained, allies where alienated and the pandemic killed more people than it otherwise could have.

Proudly restricting your viewpoint and ignoring objective reality whilst thinking that doing so gives them a superior source of pride is exactly the same condition that causes people to roll coal over cyclists.
I believe I understand the distinction between the two features perfectly well.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the parental control feature in Messages (it's pretty clear what it does and the user can decide whether to use it or not, or the parent for younger kids -- that's exactly as it should be).

I do have a problem with the feature where they scan images on my phone to match against a database of images. To be clear, here's a list of things that don't make me feel better about it: that it scans only a certain subset of images on my phone; that the technology parts of it are probably good; that NCMEC maintains the database of images (is there any particular reason to believe the database is near perfect and has all appropriate quality controls in place to ensure it remains so?)

There are several issues about this that Apple does not address. A big one for me is the indignity and humiliation of them force scanning my phone for CP.

Here's a hypothetical for Craig Federighi and Tim Cook to consider:

Suppose we know there are people who smuggle drugs on airplanes on their person for the purpose of something terrible, like addicting children or poisoning people. If I run an airport I could say: to stop this, I'm going to subject everyone who flies out of my airport to a body-cavity search. Tim, and Craig, are you OK with this? If I can say, "Don't worry! We have created this great robots that ensure the body cavity searches are gentle and the minimum needed to check for illegal drugs," does it really change anything to make it more acceptable to you?
I chuckled at your picking up that part out of this whole (really great) book.

The general story line about the terrorists trying to "deal" with the global warming is ahead of its time.
Don't want to spoil it for anyone, but it's funny how the President wasn't the (most) ridiculous one there.
Well to be contrarian: lies, damn lies and statistics...the scholarly arguments about the extent to which man is influencing our climate and the extent to which natural cycles and space weather are far more important is essentially a data war. Both sides have a plethora of data and statistics to make their case.

I do wonder and worry about the damage this 'you did it' alarmism is very negatively affecting the human psyche, causing substance abuse, depression, suicides etc.

https://youtu.be/2ObjtVdsV3I
Yes it has adapted to larger temp swings, but these other swings occurred over 10ks or 100ks of years, not 0.15k years. Life cannot adapt over the span of single or low double digit generations.
Apple won't say no to a court order.
Here's what I think is just one interesting way to think about it: what if our current forms of government, combined with all other variables in the system that we find ourselves within, are simply insufficient to reach an adequate response to this issue? Or worse: maybe government is just one of many components that are not up to the task.

And if you feel the urge to say something like "No, that's not it", then I would ask: "How do you know?", or "What if we manage to somehow decide and unify on a plan, but the plan is inadequate?"

Whether people like it or not, solving this requires a series of actions that are actually adequate to solve the problem.
We all seem to have no problem realizing this at our day jobs, but it seems to me there is something about this problem that downgrades people's ability to execute logic at a high level of comppetency. Perhaps it's that the system is infinitely complex, but it does not appear this way?
I never said South Korea didn't commit any war crimes, just that they were highly motivated to prevent North Korea from taking over and ruling them. Unlike the Afghanis, who do not seem highly motivated to prevent the Taliban from ruling them.
I remember reading about that! Strange times.
Well I guess what I'm asking is why you think it's not an option then.

Is criticism they didn't have as many CSAM matches per year why?

Because I don't believe it was nearly as strong as the criticism this garnered. In fact at this point it's fairly clear they could roll back the change and get more kudos than criticism
The kind of evidence provided by the GOP? Yes that kind.

The senate council that had those findings was GOP lead. The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit.
After many years, I realized that's not even the central question of importance. Rather, is the universe representable with finite information? If so, then its description can be written as a series of digits, and all such series are somewhere in the number π, in fact, and infinitessimally small part π, of which is mind-blowing.
Barebone VSCode is pretty minimalist. You can also hide everything in the side/bottom toolbar. Remove minimap and tabs, etc.
That's by design (or rather, I knew it would do this and took the vague "ascending" and "descending" in the description to mean adjacent elements wouldn't be equal). Using < in d means ascending runs are strict but descending ones aren't. Probably better to use ≤ to swap these. That would match the run-splitting scheme used by Timsort.
The current owners just do some extra paperwork that asserts the original papertrail that was lost, basically that's it. The downside is that it usually results in a significantly lower sale price if you try to sell down the road because there is a risk of contested ownership that will result in legal fees or losing the property (very rare). I did work for what I later learned were shady real estate/escrow companies some years back, maybe it changed since then.
nobody understands slow motion crises, doesn't compute
It is a myth that it is "the only solution". If not everyone can live like Americans (agreed), then we'll all have to find a different way to live. Many of us are working on building that new way of living as we speak.

You may also be interested to know that global population growth has been falling for 60 years and will almost certainly continue to do so. There's no need for anyone to take active measures in this area. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-has-t...
As they are, app stores are crap. They are a huge control mechanism to stiff competition.

For those of you who are old enough: Imagine if in 2000, Microsoft released "Windows Me" with something similar (for PC) to what Apple or Google are doing in the current dominant computing device form factor (Mobile). It just would not have been tolerated. Adobe, Netscape, Autodesk, Corel and others having to pay Microsoft a 15% cut for their software? Netscape? Opera? Apple having to pay 15% of the revenue from Apple Itunes? That's crazy...
If the ocean temperature gets warm enough, it's hard to say what the climate will be in the rust belt. Basically, the natural circulation of water that cycles cold and warm water might stop -- leaving some places extremely cold.

The "AMOC" might stop, in other words. Maybe not? Let's hope. But is it worth the risk of pushing things so far that we might just find out?
How can two app stores have a _mono_poly?
Practically no one is a flat earther. Anti-vaxxers - maybe 2% of population. Again, not significant. Anti-mRNA - higher, maybe 20% with a portion of those just waiting to see.

Climate deniers - Depends how you define them.

I've been called that but my position is that it is happening, some of it is attributable to human activity, but it is not happening at a rate that we won't be able to adapt to.
Even if we accept that. It is a lie to say the device is being scanned. It is definitely not. Only the photos the user chooses to upload are checked. That is not the device.
Imagine an asteroid would be on trajectory to collide with earth in (say) 2025.

Possible order of hypothetical events:

1. Scientist discover the asteroid. Calculate risk of collision.

2. Asteroid comes closer, probability of impact is calculated as high.

3. People will start saying that we cannot let our economy be controlled by the specter of an asteroid.

4. The asteroid becomes visible. You can see it with your bare eyes.

5. Still people start claiming it's fake news: The scientists are lying, it's a great conspiracy, it's all just to control us all.

6. Destroying or diverting the asteroid is estimated to be so expensive that it will change our way of life.

7. Anti-Asteroid-Action demonstrations would start all over the planet, to protest any expensive actions against the asteroid.

8. News outlets will be asked to be keep the bias out of their reporting, because they would support "asteroid believers".

9. Countries will create treaties to stop the impact by 2030, or perhaps delay it to 2040.

10. Scientists report new data. Impact is certain. Models about consequences are increasingly accurate and dire.

11. These scientists are labeled as alarmists.

12. The rich countries refuse to take the financial burden, because they feel it's unfair.

13. Impact is now a few weeks away. Nothing happened. Nobody did anything.

Update: Layout and spelling.
So now we know that the threshold is about 30 photos. And we know this:

>"The threshold is set to provide an extremely high level of accuracy and ensures less than a one in one trillion chance per year of incorrectly flagging a given account."

Does that mean they expect about one in every 2.5 people per year to have at least a single false positive image match? (2.512^30 = a trillion)
> There is a severely underestimated group of religious people who think that only God controls the weather

There are also millions of ultra-fundamentalists who believe that we are presently living in the "end times" and in some cases doing things to attempt to bring about the end of civilization and final parts of the book of Revelations as quickly as possible. Or they simply don't care about environmental matters because they actually believe civilization and human life on earth will cease to exist in the next 50 years.
When a company has to remove the motto

"Don't be evil"

You know something is not well
Again, this writeup is more about the bioengineering hypothesis while embarak states another theory. in it‘s current state the term lab leak has almost become meaningless
I wish I could get USDA Dominos at home.

Never had it, maybe it does taste terrible.
The Surprising Genius of 3D Printed Rockets [video]
We should do a little experiment, since HN is so good at gathering and keeping data on us.

Gather the last year's worth of commentary around this subject and get all the people who kneejerked "lab hypothesis is a conspiratorial/xenophobic/racist theory," and ask them what do they think about the situation now and what has changed in their minds.

I'd love to know.
Thanks for the contribution to this discussion.

People don’t like masks, got it. People don’t like seatbelts either. In both cases, society pays the cost. But at the same time, these rugged freedom fighters crusading for a false sense of individualism have no issue with reaping the benefits of living in a well-funded society full of services, full of people that care about other’s well being.

I think there might be assumption made that everyone who wears masks likes it. I don’t like it. But it’s easy, and I like taking simple measures that help keep my family and community safe.

Like a seatbelt, a simple tool that is easy to use and saves lives. Also like a seatbelt, not using it places a potential burden on those around you.
Are there any publicly-traded companies/etfs/funds/prediction markets/whatever that a retail investor can invest in if they believe that carbon removal technology will play a significant role in the future?
Apple software chief PR damage control on WSJ [video]
I was definitely confused, for the record. I had the impression that Apple would scan all photos on device, but that is not true. I was also confused because several changes were announced at once, and the conversations sometimes blended them.
I disagree, for the simple reason that infrastructure is nearly impossible to test (particularly when testing in local development), and that infrastructure is inherently non-portable.
high level there's a two pronged path:

* Clean electricity generation (solar, wind, hydro with some sort of grid storage/distribution mechanism to handle when sun isn't shining/wind isn't blowing) and

* Electrification (EVs, non-gas heating)

> Can we have planes

Yes, at some point. Electric planes are being explored but have difficulties with battery weight. Another possibility is green hydrogen or perhaps some other yet-undiscovered energy source. Planes account for a relatively low percentage of global emissions (maybe 2% right now?) so this is not a priority

> Boats?

Yes -- electric pleasure crafts exist already. For long haul/shipping I'm not totally sure what's being worked on, but it certainly will be possible

> Clothing

Another space I'm not super familiar with. Again, it's important to remember that we need to focus on the heavy hitters, which currently are dirty electricity production (ie coal plants) and transportation (gas-powered cars)
That is very black and white thinking.

Large organizations can do both good and terrible things.

Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic which pretty clearly is a good thing. Youtube has an incredible wealth of tutorials & educational content. Deepmind is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Various OSS projects continue to be pushed out. Gmail has been an amazing free resource for millions etc.

They are also doing terrible things as well.
I had several eye surgeries related to my congenital cataracts as a kid, including one where I had to wear an eye patch bandage for a few weeks. I remember being given a Mickey Mouse doll with a circular band-aid over the same eye, similar to my own. I peeled it off right away. Maybe I was a cynical kid.
Proof #32767 why monopolies are bad
My dad worked for a division of Motorola that was bought by Google and it sure felt like, during that time, if you were working for Motorola you could be laid off at a moment's notice.

Google stock was eventually included in his compensation package, though. I can imagine that eased some of the worry.
Iirc it’s a bit of a myth that Jupiter protects the Earth. It does some sometimes capture objects and send them away from us, but it also sometimes hurls objects straight towards us
Buzzfeed is a weird Jekyll & Hyde business. They have two businesses

i) the typical buzzfeed junk - Buzzfeed - This group follows no journalism practices, steals content from other sites, doesn't attribute, writes click bait articles, rebrands ads as articles, etc.

ii) the investigate journalism department - Buzzfeed News - this team has top notch investigative journalism. They actually do tons of original research, interview and cite sources, break big stories (many of the Uber scandals were found through their original research). Basically this group follows journalism standards and actually is at the top tier of investigative journalism.

The irony is that i) and ii) are run under the same brand and the only reason why Buzzfeed can fund investigate journalism ii) is due to the b.s. content they serve from i).

it's a weird scenario where the org is both the worst and best of journalism. Bu at least they have found a sustainable, albeit sleazy, way of funding investigative journalism.
https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl
Cosmos, both the book and the series, debuted in 1980. In it, Sagan warned of greenhouse effects

Al Gore was holding congressional hearings on climate change when he was first elected to Congress. In 1976. Environmental issues were the focus of his efforts during his Vice Presidency. From 1993 to 2001.

So. We're actually closer to 50 years.

It's not like we were not warned.