skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is there really anyone who does not see this for what it is, a really transparent effort to introduce surveillance infrastructure under the guise of "saving the children"?

If so, I would love to hear what assures you so much about this.

A couple reasons I don't believe a single word:

* After years of the surveillance state begging and pleading about compromising encryption, they went silent after talks with Apple and Google, over about the very time it can reasonably be expected it would take to develop this "feature".

* The number of pedos this could potentially even catch is supposedly so small that it is a compromise of everyone's rights … an inherent contradiction of not only Constitutional laws, but the very concept of innocence before being proven guilty. Not to mention that we have long been told there are no pedo rings, even in spite of the fact that even without this "feature" the last administration broke up more of these pedo rings than ever before. Why do we need this "feature" now then?

* Any actual pedo rings will easily work around this feature simply by altering images and changing the hash in various ways too numerous to list right now.

* Innocent people could easily be swept up in this if they happen to have images that hash to something the feds are comparing against, within the threshold of tolerance. What happens then, a secret court provides a secret court order to penetrate your network and devices to confirm whether you are a pedo because you took pictures of your grandchildren in a bathing suit?

* oh, did I mention the mountain of history of nothing but abuse and lies and lies and abuse in every single way possible and even to the point that he people exposing the not just illegal acts, but evil acts, are deliberately targeted by the state?

Why anyone would believe Apple, let alone the government that is clearly suspiciously standing in the background, looking away, whistling into the sky trying to act as if it has nothing to do with this, is beyond me. It's all just lies, front to back, top to bottom, left to right and in every other dimension.

What this clearly will be misused for is to identify or fingerprint dissidents and worngthinkers of any kind, including those who thing they are now rightthinkers, who will find themselves on the other side of the divide when they've expended their usefulness.
My opinion of Apple falls pretty substantially with every new justification and explanation. They invented a fancy back door. Privacy-preserving software cannot trigger third party content review under any circumstances, no matter how vile. It cannot fail in a way that results in an arrest or legal expenses.

If Apple won’t indemnify customers against false positives produced by this system, then it isn’t reliable enough for me to entrust them with my data.
> Mr Federighi said the "soundbyte" that spread after the announcement was that Apple was scanning iPhones for images.

But that's exactly what's happening? Most people using an iPhone sync photos with iCloud (especially after they introduced the more cost-effective 2TB Apple One plan), images are scanned before they are uploaded to iCloud, ergo Apple will be scanning the iPhone for images.
Internet is vast. I am not paying for every content out there. If they ask for money, I will find a free version with ads. They can do whatever they want with their subscription models.
Bingo! Not all friends are in the same strata, unless one prefers to travel in a narrow socioeconomic bubble. Some are above, and if they offer to cover my meal, I'm happy to accede. Others are below, and for them I always offer to cover their meal. It may not seem fair, but is ultimately just.
Yep. I mean, obviously you don't want that to happen, but it's something you can make a complete recovery from.
It's not just ordinary stupid people. I've known people with advanced degrees who ostensibly make a living making predictions who don't believe it. Sometimes their arguments get very very intricate. There's just so many layers to the onion it's impossible to do in a conversation, rather than say an essay.

Other friends have CS degrees and don't believe it either.

It's particularly hard because there's a lot of little battles that they might win in an argument.

In the end it all comes down to secondary source critique, since nobody is ever sitting there with actual data. It's often "I don't believe in this guy, he's made a career out of scaremongering".
There was no confusion, this is a turnkey surveillance system who's scope will expand to whatever those with power over apple decide is taboo. I think we all got the message loud and clear.
I do. The nuclear family only works with a stay-at-home wife, a husband capable of always being employed with enough income to support four people (two adults, two kids, and a dog), and magically no one ever gets sick.

If one of those two providers gets sick or leaves, the system collapses. Either a maid or a pension (or both) is needed, and those are entirely outside the reach of the vast majority of Americans.

A more robust, anti-fragile system would involve support from either an extended family to help when things get hard, or a meaningfully robust set of public programs. The nuclear family has no support from extended family by default, and the public programs have been largely removed (as the article states).

The idea that nuclear families work is a lie. They don’t scale due to fragility.
(in case anyone else is wondering: The original article of the thread is talking about surface level temperature)
It's because more than 100,000 people work at Google. If I had written a comment saying "if you're ever in [small city], you might want to check out [thing]" I suspect nobody would have a problem with that.
It's amazing that neither the article nor any of the comments so far mention that Google bought part of Motorola, for its 10,000 patents. Then sold it a few years later.

I was in Google Patents and I interviewed people for the position of "acquirer of patents." This was a period when they actually thought the "throw weight" of your patent portfolio really mattered in cross-licensing deals. Most of those patents were utterly worthless in any sort of deal.
Reducing carbon emissions is no longer enough. Carbon removal is the only hope.

YC is funding startups in this space: http://carbon.ycombinator.com/
Imagine some state decides to focus the "war on crime" efforts on scanning people's phones for selfies with handguns and/or white powder.

That's what the CSAM initiatives sound like to me.
> They need to address industry, shipping

That would be possible with well thought out tariffs. Foreign countries (like China) have no problem bringing online coal power plants at an out of control pace. Then, with all these cheap power plants it's no wonder they can undercut every European and American manufacturer, who has to pay for green energy and environmental norms.
At this point, people are literally dying in heatwaves and houses are burning in forest fires. People are also dying in floods/landslides. But then deniers casually dismiss these as things that have happened in the past.

Sometimes I feel like nothing short of a collapse of the agricultural system and a subsequent famine-triggered civil war killing people's immediate family members is going to wake them up.

I hear key aquifers like the Colorado river are drying up, so it's probably even a fairly likely scenario within the next decade too...
It's become political at this point. Vaccines, too. Funny thing is, even Donald Trump got the vaccine.
Snopes' fact checking is a meme at this point.

They fact-check opinions they have re-framed in their own language as opposed to fact-checking the facts the opinion is based on. (Claim: the economy is way better: Truth: no, it's only 5%)

They often reframe the claims to add a detail the author never said. (Did John ate ice cream on Sunday? No, he ate it at Saturday 23:35).

The worst is when they rely on cherry-picked experts or anonymous sources: (we asked an ex-CIA analyst if the leaks are true, he said it's most likely not, trust us as we trust him)
Are you aware of the Milwaukee Bucks winning the NBA Finals despite all the droughts in the western US?
Well first of all I wasn't using gdb since it's not available on the platform this code was running on.

Second, the std::terminate call doesn't get called from the dtor, it gets called from the stdc runtime in the call frame of the throw (with OS code in between). The stack isn't actually unwound at this point, it's more like the stdc runtime is walking up the call stack looking for a landing pad at each frame.

Third, I didn't know about how this all worked, so I was trying to piece it all together for the first time.

Yes, I saw the throw happen. But the symptom was then that the program just... terminated.
We should listen to the scientists because they're the best we've got. But at the same time, we need to be humble and leave room for them to be wrong. This is where science shines - we should always feel comfortable shedding incorrect models/theories and embrace new ideas that might better explain the data.

So yes, ACC is real, but we should still encourage honest people to investigate and propose a better explanation if there is one. Drowning out honest voices makes the entire scientific community look bad. (Certainly, we should not give a platform to dishonest, known frauds)
>"Using an unofficial charger damages your phone: True"

>"Chargers have all sorts of controls that limit the amount of current delivered and stop it charging when the battery is full"

They're wrong here.

The charging logic is inside the phone. The power brick you plug into the wall is just a power supply and isn't responsible for stopping charging when full.

The brick also only limits maximum current for its own safety, the phone decides how much to draw and will not draw more than it is designed for.

A charger will only damage your phone if it provides out of spec voltage that's too high.
I don't agree. I think this is just a faulty way to see the world.

I grew up with ample evidence and cries of scientist of the reality of global warming, and no actual real evidence to the contrary.

And everybody else grew with the same information.

If you think that it is ok to deny everything "because somebody said so" until your house burns down because of it, then you are THE problem.

Please, don't push responsibility somewhere else.
Good lord. I barely made a short 3 sentence long observational comment. What does it have to do with fox? You are basically doing an hominem attack.

And for what it's worth, no, I haven't followed corporate media (including cnn, msnbc, fox, nytimes, washington post etc). I pay for independent journalists on substack and locals instead.

Also the link which you provided is referring to RealClearPolitics being the real source, not fox. fox is doing an opinion piece on what RealClearPolitics reported. Exact same stuff which other left leaning sources do.
The interesting thing is that the company Google feared might push them out on mobile was Microsoft.

>Google worried that if Microsoft made it hard enough to use Google search on its mobile devices and easy enough to use Microsoft search, many users would just switch search engines. This was the way Microsoft killed Netscape with Internet Explorer in the 1990s. If users stopped using Google’s search engine and began using a competitor’s such as Microsoft’s, Google’s business would quickly run aground.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-d...
Climate change does not care about ideology, psychology, or any of the issues you listed. It's a problem that affects literally everyone, and it needs solving.
> And then foreign states stop buying it to recycle.

It was never recycled. Pretty much always was systematically illegally dumped into the ocean.
Your code did not work for me, here is what worked:

javascript:(function(){audio=document.createElement('audio');audio.controls=true;audio.autoplay=true;audio.src='https://per.quest/'+document.location.href;
audio.style='position:fixed;right:0;top:0;height:revert;z-index:10000;';document.body.appendChild(audio);})();
I think "climate change" is the best general term of the bunch. "Global warming" makes people think it's all bunk whenever it gets cold. Hell, a US Senator once brought a snowball onto the senate floor to "prove" it's all fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8
>"To be fair, a lot of you nuts are absolutely alleging "premeditated conspiracy", or even loopier notions like bioweapon engineering. "

Why are you insulting me? I honestly don't know where this virus came from, and am more interested in what the polarized discourse says about our current state of affairs.
I recently found out that SQLite added support for FILTER aggregate clauses in version 3.30.0, released 2019-10-04: https://til.simonwillison.net/sqlite/sqlite-aggregate-filter...
There was no confusion here. Everybody I’ve read was talking solely about that first feature.
About this, what was very puzzling to me was the opinions of the late Michael Chrichton. He was constantly expressing the opinion that the global warming was a frame up, both in his books but also to various talks. He had even written a book on which the bad guys were Greenpeace agents!

Now, considering how highly educated (not only he was a great author but he also had studied MD) and smart (this should be obvious to anybody that has read his books and watched over his career) he was, it means a lot to me that this person had these beliefs. Also the fact that he is not related to the field so he doesn't have anything to gain by believing and advocating these opinions makes the fact even more important.

As I said I am really puzzled about that. Does anybody has more information to shade a light on that?
Arguing with proofs just ends up leading to Brandolini's law [1]. You can make the most researched argument against any ridiculous point and you just get back a shoot from the hip rebuttal that needs further research that ends need a lengthly explanation why it's also wrong and it just keeps going.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
You assumed that there was a strong uniform ideology because scientists aligned with one political party, when in fact there was a strong uniform body of data which caused the scientists to agree. They aligned with one political party because it supported an objectively correct stance, while the other did not.

Your heuristics utterly failed you, leaving you blind to a devastating truth at a critical moment. While you seem to be on the road to acknowledging the truth about climate change, I can only hope that you are also ready to let go of the flawed reasoning that set you so far back.
Don't forget the camp of people who say "It exists, and we're past the point at which we can do something about it."

I have to say, that on some days I almost feel like I share that mindset, as the promise of democracy that I was raised up on does not seem to bear fruits. It feels like people have learned to game the system too well.
Also have heard folks make an argument that it's more economical to plan to live in the post-climate changed world than to stop climate change. See https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/...
I think the problem Apple ran into was that there was no confusion at all. Apple announced they were going to scan users' devices after years of marketing themselves as a "privacy-focused" company. Shockingly, customers were pretty mad about the whole thing.
I once spent ten minutes frantically looking for my wristwatch. It was very stressful, because I had to go to school, and I did not have much time left to catch the bus. So after a while (like I said, about ten minutes), I looked at my wristwatch to see how much time I had left. It took another 30 seconds for me to realize that I had been wearing my wristwatch the whole time.

Being smart does not save you (and not me, either!) from being dumb. And there have been times in my life when I was able to substitute inventiveness with stubbornness.

So there are upper bounds to everyone's intelligence, human or animal[0], genius or idiot. Given the variety we can observe in our fellow humans, I think it's fair to assume birds have their "village idiots", too.

[0] Except for barnacles, of course, but they are very discreet about it.
Apple regrets confusion over "you're holding it wrong".
While science does tend to keep estimates and language neutral to focus on hard facts, I would argue that those facts have pointed to catastrophe for a long time [1]. The language of fact is often dry and what most people (myself included) naturally pay attention to are loud/charismatic/flashy presentations of topics.

Visualization [2] of data helps understand just how much area we can expect to lose around the coasts. These kinds of datasets are available and scientists do their best to publish them but what the public ultimately gets are articles filtered through journalists who often "translate" what they hear.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rap...

[2] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.60473416...
From looking at the report, I'm not sure I understand this decision. The referenced policy is about in-store or in-app purchases, primarily of digital content, and a free donation is not "purchasing" anything.

(Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)
> does not propagate errors properly

Is "panicking on allocation failure" the only example of this, or are there others?
To be honest the only way we will ever know is if the chinese would share the genomes of the viruses they stored in their lab, but who would trust them to do that? The express drive-by the WHO did in china served absolutely no purpose. I am ready to bet that all samples have been destroyed and the staff briefed (warned). I would even suspect the samples have not even been analysed by the Chinese themselves as it is better to not know than running the risk of some technician leaking such damaging information (and who would trust the Chinese authorities whatever they say anyway). So my money is on “we will never know”.

But like others, I have strong suspicions. It starts by an improbable coincidence (pandemic starting at the doorstep of a lab). The Chinese have acted guilty from the outset, by lying about the virus, arresting doctors, not allowing any investigation, and pushing crazy alternative theories.
> When was the last time they did anything good?

Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
Without the implementation, they can respond to government demands with "we don't have the capability to report dissidents."

Once they have the capability rolled out, it's just a one-line config change to enable it.
The other part was not comparing it to either existing server-side scanning or E2E. Maybe it's just optimistic but it seems like the reaction might have been different if it had been something like “we are currently scanning our servers. To make our service E2E with this narrow exception, we are moving that scan to the client.”
> other than clogging up hospital resources

Which is significant.

Also, most of these polices were created based on research prior to Delta becoming prevalent which showed that the vaccines indeed did reduce spread. Since Delta is more transmissible, this benefit is reduced.
> The hot July killed 1000 people in the Pacific Northwest alone in just 1 week.

Cold kills more people than heat. Milder winters will save more lives than will be lost in hotter summers.
The point the parent was making is that citing authority isn't a bad thing to do. Citing authorities in _a different field_ often is, though.

(Citing a doctor on the common cold is not a fallacy, but citing a doctor on global economics is)
I always thought some of my friends would do what you did to me here, which is to dehumanize me for my choice to maintain my sanity. If you look through my posts you'll see I do belong to a protected class which has struggled for representation over decades, one which most recently saw people blowing their brains out in front of hospitals begging for the system to be better. Politics, in that way, can be perceived as life and death for my group, and of which I have very personal trials with.

For a time, I thought "educating" people on what these issues were would make them care more yet as group after group garnered national attention and my group was further deprioritized, villainized, and misrepresented I came to understand that even if people say they care, they will never care the way I care, and so the outrage to fix those issues will never come. It's an unrealistic expectation that everyone else will care about your issues as much as you do and my own experience being on the other end of this equation, where I'm being told this is life and death important, while having to ignore my own priorities and concerns tells me this is not a healthy construct.

That's to say, I was wasting time on people I don't know trying to rectify paradigms I was lucky enough to make it through when I could've spent time with my friends who are actually in them. Maybe I am privileged in your definition, in that I made it, but my life-experiences tell quite a different story.
Are they wrong? It seems like most people don’t understand that Apple was already scanning iCloud Photos on their servers like Google scans Google Photos, they’re just going to be doing it client side now.

I’m not defending Apple, I wish they wouldn’t do this, but I see section 230 levels of lack of understanding out there.
There is no confusion. However I would say im disappointed by the BBCs lack of integrity
Camelbak Chute Mag. Parking the lid in the open position using a magnet is great, no loosing it and easy to clean
The author does not think it's ridiculous at all. The next paragraph exactly addresses your comment:

> If we are only taking into consideration the information that is immediately available then the situation does indeed seem pretty ridiculous. But if we stop and consider what might be the broader context we can imagine scenarios where wearing a mask alone makes a lot of sense.
Well, yah. Recycling has always been something between an unfulfilled hope and an outright sham.

Reduce and Reuse were always the most important components of the trifecta.
I find it puzzling that most comments in here don’t even reference the original premise of Reddit.

> Reddit is largely a community of anonymous users that provide web content for each other.

The communities and the anonymous bit is totally the draw for most users. Most technical suggestions for monetization I read in here seem to completely ignore that (outside of marketing to a subreddit instead of directly to users, which some subreddits don’t even allow because that’s not the point of Reddit).

Suggestions I’ve read like not allowing multiple accounts, no anonymous users, etc. seem like suggestions that would kill the platform.
in postgres you can do

SELECT a.this, b.that
FROM a, b
WHERE a.id = b.a_id;

it just implies SELECT ... FROM a LEFT JOIN b ON(true)
WHERE ...
This is cool! I recently tried to use VoiceOver on my iPhone and it’s… astonishingly difficult to use for just text to speech!

One minor request: I realize the form page itself is very minimal, but this would be much more usable on a phone if you set the font-size of the input to at least 16px, and a reasonable viewport meta tag eg `<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">`
I think I had a run-in with one of those in Maryland. I hadn't been following the murder hornet story much since they seemed to be isolated to the PNW, but thought I saw one in my backyard earlier this year. I haven't seen one since, but it's good to know it was probably just a cicada killer.
Using AI to detect dementia in an early stage