skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For years at least, perhaps a decade or more, there has been a decent-size far-right crowd on HN that subscribes to conspiracy theories themselves. Perhaps this post is a troll farm's doing, perhaps it is organic behavior on HN. From my perspective, HN is very conservative/right leaning at least, and large numbers of voters and commenters are on here and support far-right-wing views. There is a lot of racism, white supremacy, misogyny, and anti-LGBT sentiment here. I have been called more hateful slurs on HN than I have anywhere else online or IRL.

shrug. Hard to say about how organic this story is.
The Russia thing was cover for politicians (such as the Clintons, who have served on boards of WalMart etc, and of course the Bidens) who had been selling out US interests to that other country which many consider to be the main adversary to the US. Planting the idea that it was Russia, and not that other country, that was really interfering in US domestic politics, was a very important distraction. A lot of people in the US think that Russia is the main enemy of the US. Can't make this stuff up!
Wouldn’t that upend most theories about when the people who left Africa left Africa?

Never mind, new estimates go as far back as 300,000ya.
I feel like the wording in your original post was particularly poor though - instead of focusing in on those two as individuals you attributed the issue to democrats as a whole - and also omitted that the bill would also pass quite easily if, say, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz decided to vote for it. You mentioned that it passed due to the previous administration (a republican administration) and was now in danger (under a democratic administration) due to corrupt democrats. It's a guideline on HN to always read things as charitably as possible but the wording here was really really poor and could easily be read as a proposition that the democrats were torpedoing something championed by republicans. Additionally - specifically pulling political parties into the discussion will always make the discourse degrade.
Note that many of the administrative hurdles could be overcome by moving the benefit to the Social Security Administration, who already have the data needed. Also, it's been a while since I looked at this, but Republican Mitt Romney had the best proposal out of all the child benefit proposals that were kicking around earlier this year. That the democrats didn't pick up on it is a sad statement about them.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/02/15/who-should-a...
>It sounds like swing voters didn't really care about Trump's scandals

Really? My impression was that they were the only ones who cared (in the sense that they could make a decision one way or the other, as opposed to being fated to a decision by one's sociopolitical loyalties/hatreds).
The state governors already have a personal army in the national guard ;)

But yes, I didn't flesh out some of the details on how to add civilian oversight. I think you could model it roughly around the federal Justice Department. You would have a head law enforcement official, appointed by the governor and approved by the state legislature, perhaps serving a longer term than the governor so that the position isn't nearly as tied to the administration. And then a head of a state "Justice department" of sorts (a broader agency covering the state law enforcement agency, the department of corrections, and some additional sub-organizations like state capitol security, a state-wide internal affairs office, etc.) which is also appointed by the governor and approved by the state legislature. This justice department head would then act as a buffer between the governor and day-to-day law enforcement activities. The idea would be to limit state-level control of law enforcement to regulatory changes (either advanced by the governor in a limited capacity, and the state legislature more broadly) and not individual investigations. But, as we saw in the Trump administration, this separation isn't exactly ironclad, and depends a lot on politicians and officials obeying certain cultural norms and standards. When you're creating a brand new organization and system from scratch at the state level, you won't have those ingrained cultural norms. Another options would be making law enforcement an independent agency headed up by a council. This would work in a similar way to the FEC, the FTC, the FCC, or the Federal Reserve. Leadership is made up by a group of board members who serve either for life or some long time period. Vacancies are filled by governor appointment, but subject to state legislature approval. Because the governor can't fire council members (excluding perhaps special circumstances, but that's beyond the scope of this post), and can only appoint new ones with the cooperation of the state legislature, this provides a significant degree of insulation from governor and legislative control.

The accrediting body also provides a significant degree of oversight in a different manner. This body would function like the state bar associations, meaning they would be completely independent from the government. This means the people have essentially no democratic control over them, except for the extreme step of repealing the law requiring state funds go only to departments accredited by that association. So you would have to be very careful going about setting up such an organization, and make sure it is organized internally to continue to function well. And of course, by definition this wouldn't really count as "civilian oversight", since the association would be completely independent and made up at least partially of law enforcement professionals, but would very much protect against the "governor using the police as a personal army" scenario.
Anecdotally, I have metabolic syndrome, which is part of the reason why I am so interested in the process and issues surrounding it. My body naturally burns about 15% fewer calories than it should all things considered, I would have to exercise for about 30 minutes every day to equal the same caloric burn as a twin of mine without the issue's sitting on their butt all day.

Despite that, I've lost almost 100lbs from dieting (intermittent fasting, ECA stack, even Keto for a while) over the last several years but I'm still trapped by the condition as the less I weigh the worse the syndrome gets. Increased hunger, depression, lethargy, exhaustion, body temperature decreasing (painfully cold hands even in the middle of summer), insomnia, irritability, all of these issues hit me at the same time and get worse the lower my weight goes.

I don't have diabetes, blood sugar and a1c are normal, no hypertension (actually hypotensive), generally decent health otherwise. Diabetes and excess fat isn't the disease, it's the visible symptom of a larger issue caused by the American diet and lifestyle. Sure, it's my fault (and my parent's fault) that I became obese as a child but now the typical solutions for the issue simply do not work, and people who refuse to see that there is more going on than simply "fat pigs won't stop eating" do literally less than nothing to help solve or identify the core issues.

The food control / prevention of overeating solution works to prevent people from ending up like this, but rarely works to solve the issue once it has taken root, not to mention that the body typically doesn't lose fat cells once they have been created so even if you get to a normal weight you basically have a human fat cell parasite hungrily clawing at every morsel of food you eat more than what you immediately need permanently attached to your body unless you undergo surgeries to physically excise it from your body. (This is one of the reasons why most contestants on the Biggest Loser end up regaining their weight within a short amount of time, for instance. It's far easier to refill empty fat cells than it is for fat cells to be built by the body.)

This is why obesity is a crisis. Not just because of diabetes, but because the tools that we have to fight obesity once it arrives are insufficient for the job.
You can tell this is political drivel because the only thing here is speculation on the motivation of the delivery of the information, not on the veracity of the information itself.

Krebson Security's take on this is the best one I've seen. Their conclusion is solid: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/09/lawsuits-indictments-rev...
I have generally found that integration tests with well-mocked external dependencies achieve 80% of the things E2E tests do with a quarter of the effort.
The post says "an alternative career accelerated through learning, wealth, and reputation" ... and then doesn't talk about anything other than equity.

The article says "Equity will be your largest driver of compensation at a startup." as the rationalization of why it focuses on that.

Based on my past experiences, I would say that the learning, network, and reputational effects resulted in far more wealth to me over the medium-term than any incremental change in equity or salary.
URL from a previous submission: https://www.tenably.app/#/shopify

> It's estimated that 265,000 website accessibility related demand letters were sent in 2020 alone.

Full claim from the https://www.accessibility.com/complete-report-2020-website-a... report reads "We estimate that approximately 265,000 website accessibility related demand letters were sent to U.S. businesses in 2020." "In 2020, we estimate that the 2,058 formal website accessibility
lawsuits filed represent less than 1% (0.78%) of demand letters
sent. This means that out of the estimated 265,000 demand
letters sent to U.S. businesses, nearly 263,000 go undetected in
formal counts. "

Of those 500 alone were filed by one person against hotel websites. Amazing.
3. onus probandi?

I haven't interacted with the ocaml community enough to form any opinion, but honestly "the toxic community hypothesis", as you put it, is intellectual garbage.

With the same reasoning, one could argue that yours is a textbook example of the "overly sensible guy hypothesis", which states that only unreasonably sensible people would complain about communities rather than adapt.

It's pretty obvious that toxic communities do exist, and the "overly sensible guy hypothesis" is nonsensical, but your demeanor is implying that the user you were responding to is himself toxic, which I don't find at all reasonable.
If a noteworthy number of people decided they were going to not work, the cost of labor would rise, and prices would rise until those people needed to work again.
I guess I read "normally" as a bit of a weasel word that can easily be misconstrued. It would be better to say something quantifiable.
You're getting downvoted for the joke, but in a way, yes everyone in the USA is supposed to provide for themselves.

Aside from a few demeaning and complicated government programs, the USA has only distributed resources through factor payments based on labor, or ownership of capital. Most of our programs aiming to help the poor only phase in after the poor have earned a certain amount of money through labor.
The problem is that we are not having the same conversation. I am talking about torturing animals and you aren't. I'm not trying to talk down to you, but it's impossible for it to be seen any other way. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong.
Yeah so part of it is in CNY and part of it is in btc. Can gov really say "wow you payed too little for that!"
If you don't like your job you can always quit. Something I don't get is present employees denouncing their employer while expecting to keep their job.
Aimbots are a form of obvious cheat. If anti cheat worked, they wouldn't be possible. The movement of the player input and accuracy is mathematically obvious. The problem is anti cheats aren't designed to prevent cheating, they're designed to sell a product that non programmers want to buy. Same as DRM. Somewhere down the list is actually having the anti cheat work, it's not the main goal.
No. You would have to find the fault amounted to at least negligence (meaning your claim was made baselessly and without any thought or consideration at all). Simply being incorrect isn’t enough, you have to be incorrect and have been wholly and completely negligent about making the statements.

Xondono would also have to show they were damaged and harmed by the statements, which would be difficult to prove.

If a newspaper falsely said that someone (let’s use a non public figure in this example, as there is a different standard for public figures, making defamation more difficult) was a child molester, that in and of itself isn’t instantly defamation, even though the person can easily show they have been harmed and damaged. You would need to show that the newspaper did zero or near zero due diligence into making the claim, meaning they were negligent. If there was evidence supporting the fact that someone was a child molester (even if the claim was untrue), that could show there wasn’t negligence involved. It very well might be libel, but it wouldn’t be assured.

This is one reason it is important to say things like “alleged” or “ in my opinion.” So if I said, “in my opinion, xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect,” I haven’t defamed xondono, even if my opinion is wrong and even if he feels harmed by my opinion.

Where this gets interesting is with the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuits against Fox News, Newsmax and various on-air personalities. In this case, Dominion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/03/26/fox-dominion... ) is arguing that by amplifying statements that were false, what Fox News did was with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Meaning Fox was knowingly lying. Usually, Fox News would probably have an easier time defending itself, but Dominion argues that Fox ignored its outreach to correct the record. It’s also arguing that debunked claims were continuously amplified after being debunked, because those false claims led to higher ratings. As a result of the libel lawsuits by Dominion and others, other networks like Newsmax have gone as far as to withdraw their false claims on the air and publicly apologize. Dominion may still lose its lawsuits, but it’s a much more interesting defamation lawsuit that could have significantly more of an impact on other companies, including Facebook or its fact-checking partners, than whatever Stossel is trying to do.
>As "blast"-inducing as talking with "people like me" is for you, the effect is equal and opposite for me. Stop spamming HN and r/Machinelearning.

Upvoted for candor. How long have you been a moderator of both? And what do you find spammy on r/Machinelearning on reddit.com, a website initially populated with links by fake accounts created by the founders themselves?

Which post, precisely do you consider spam on HN or on Reddit. Please be specific. Links appreciated.
note that it won't report reasons the machine was woken from hibernate, since hibernate isn't a sleep state.

also, run the command as an administrator. not just using an account that is an administrator. use an elevated cmd prompt or PowerShell window.

if you're doing all that, idk what's going on.

You can, however, see what devices are capable of waking your machine, and then disable them, by using the commands in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28647492
Of course, these groups are called personas in software engineering circles. I was answering to people who believe diversity will somehow fix all problems of this world. And they do not talk about personas. They talk about minorities, victims and races.

Before Apple or any other customer company describes personas, there is an explicit or implicit decision of which personas to consider and which not. But most consumer targeted companies hide which personas they consider and which not.
This is just PR from the Economists, so that we think everything is fine. Its NOT! Just Google and find the mountain of evidence how the US fails its children and families.
Yes exactly. This mirrors my experience as well. Of course it depends on the individual setup, but making testing easier and faster has huge benefits, but a tiny amount of E2E coverage goes a long way.
That's good to hear! I still use and like cloudflare workers, but at the time, earlier this year, the debugging experience was still a bit rough. So if that's improving, then I'm happy.
I wonder if police ever actually stopped murders from happening. Do you have any evidence that they did and have now stopped doing so? Police usually show up to crime scenes, not murders in progress. It's a murder after all, not a siege.
I'm a (formerly working) archeologist. Native American land claims are horrifically complicated and way beyond my knowledge, but I'm not aware of anything that's legally based on the scientific consensus about the earliest inhabitants of a specific area. Instead, the term you'll commonly find used is "aboriginal title", which basically just means "we've been here a long time". It's as deliberately vague as it seems and isn't affected by pre-Clovis at all.

NAGPRA has run into complex issues with ownership being unclear when we've found ancient remains, but that doesn't mean people are rejecting the concept of pre-Clovis. It's a separate set of issues entirely.

I'll mention that many indigenous belief systems do incorporate aspects of "we've always lived here" when that's clearly not what the archaeology says. Most such people accept both sides as belonging to separate things in my experience. It's not all that different from Christians who believe Exodus happened for example. The scientific consensus isn't really relevant to that belief and that's fine.
See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28647021

The $300 per child per month payments are temporary and will expire at the end of the year. Before that the extended unemployment helped a lot of parents by giving them an income and allowing them to stay home and take care of their kids (which is why I said thanks to the previous administration).

The 3.5 trillion "Human Infrastructure Bill" is supposed to be voted on on Monday but it might get gutted further by Manchin and Sinema.
How is this news? Let me know when something actually happens.
HN on the Krebs article:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28629227

You might move the discussion there and away from this one.
Your second approach is just a different way of saying the first.
Is it just me, or do those footprints look fake? As if, they were sculpted by an artist?
Someone being in prison simply for being of a certain ethnicity isn't the same as someone being in prison for crimes. Even if the root of those crimes might be complex socio-economic factors like discrimination and income inequality.

In addition, the level of human rights prisoners get in the US is far beyond what any Uighur experiences. Right to a lawyer, right to appeal convictions, visits from family members. It's really a false equivalency.
how can you tell (i ask because I don't know how to read the published earnings report) ?
I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said that 1.5/6 are common for companies that "want employees who care about the long term"
> If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?

I guess that depends on other factors. Let’s say I’m correct (for the sake of argument, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even in the US). You’d have to be negligent (amongst other things), so as I understand it, you’d have to set yourself as an authority. It would be different to make that statement if, for instance, you were to be a judge.
It's highly fact specific.

"Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on clinical research involving autism may be considered a public figure for purposes of controversies involving autism, but not for other purposes. "

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice...
Regarding that story about the Canadian notes, it seems like an unnecessary risk to me to go spend the altered $5 bill with the foil. It sounds like you can turn $5 in to $100, and only have to risk getting the $100 in to circulation. Or you can turn $5 in to $105, but then you have to risk getting 2 bills in to circulation. It's significantly more risk for a very tiny increase, no?
I can't tell if you're satirically impersonating a conspiracy theorist ("insert country here"), or if you do actually have a country in mind and are not saying it as some form of sarcasm.
Don't get your hopes too high if you think this can be used to scrub significant amount of CO2 from atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong, producing fuel from atmospheric CO2 is still wonderful news.

But you know what they produce? Methane. And methane is what? It is A FUEL. And what we do with fuel? We BURN it. Once you burn methane you get the CO2 back, for net ZERO effect on the atmosphere.

The only way this works to help the climate is if you can use thus produced methane to remove need for mining actual gas. Unfortunately (or fortunately), we are already on the way to reduce a lot of mining for energy by replacing it with electricity. So according to Amdahal's law, the benefit is also going to be small.

Producing and burying methane clathrate is still impractical and would be very risky, because they can get resurfaced and then methane is hundreds of times more potent as warming agent than CO2.
I think this depends. If you work in a fungible occupation with limited career growth you very easily can take a year off. And most of these UBI experiment have targeted low-income folks who most likely work these kind of jobs.
Making a billion doses of vaccine in 18 months: starting with two tablespoons
Illinois had, at one point, the most crowded prisons in the nation. They're still technically over capacity, but it's no longer that extreme.

In my opinion, if you want to throw more people in prison, you need to invest in the infrastructure to house them. Voters quickly lose their appetite for "Law and Order"/"Throw away the key" when the tax man comes by asking to build a new prison and hire more prison guards. I don't see many people advocating for more IDOC funding although I'm sure they exist.

Should we be locking more people up? Maybe, but how are we going to pay for it? And is that really the correct answer when the United States incarceration rate is already several times higher than the OECD average? I would say the smarter course of action is to address root causes of these problems - building more prisons and trying to incarcerate our way out of the problem is just creating our own gulag archipelago.
The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. If Facebook publishes an illegal blog post or attaches its own content... I mean, it would at least need to make a case that it wasn't making the fact check itself, that this was an API or something.

I'm not sure if they could pull that off or not. But in any case, Section 230 has never been a blanket law that says websites can't be sued for anything. It shields them from liability for 3rd-party content, that's it.

Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. I'm not a lawyer, maybe Stossel will surprise me. But my immediate take is that I think he has a weaker case than Owens', and her defamation claims got pretty solidly rejected, and not for any 230 reasons.
What I wrote:

> The impact of disease [ ... ] So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".

What we could do is read a little more carefully, just for starters.