skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A simple question: do you beleive that suppressing freedom of speech will seriously inclrease a number of vaccinated? I beleive that the best outcome is it will stay around the same. Some sensitive people will calm down and eventually vaccinate, others will become stronger anti-vaxxers, because "if it is forbidden by authorities, it should be somehow true".
Her belief was that she'd be feeding into a system that encouraged things to happen that were against her principles. I wouldn't call that self harm out of spite. Spite would be "they were right, but I'll be damned if I let them know that!" She never changed her mind on the censorship.

Is it that Yes people are too stupid to make their own decisions, but a government mandate isn’t the right tactic to influence their behavior?

That's pretty much what I see. People make sub-optimal decisions all the time for a variety of reasons and these decisions often affect others. Government mandates on bodily autonomy get tricky and have massive externalities. It's all good fun until you're the one the government says is making a bad decision.

What’s the right tactic to influence stupid people?

I don't think making a sub-optimal decision makes you stupid. In this particular case I think a better question would be "how do we influence people who are making bad decisions based on emotions and politics?" It's pretty tough to craft a government solution to that last part since the government is always political. Polite discourse is the best way IMO. It won't turn everyone, but when people get interested they won't be thrown back into their in-group by seeing nothing but coercion and vitriol.
> I'm definitely seeing a worrying trend of moving away from the conviction that data, numbers, science, logic are valuable and desirable tools to interpret the world.

My favorite example of some of the fallout resulting from this trend: the vilification and abandonment of nuclear energy by so-called environmentalists.
That's not the interpretation used by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller:

> The Supreme Court held:

> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Per Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...
I had Ultima 6 for the Atari ST. Running off floppies was kind of slow. My friend's Atari ST machine had 4MB of memory. So I set up a 3MB RAM disk. And installed the game to 'hard disk' with the RAM disk as the hard disk. Then all I had to do was format some floppies to really high density. The entire U6 installation fitted on (I think) 2 floppies. I also used a rapid file copy program.

I copied the files to RAM disk, played the game, saved the game, quit the game, and saved the files back to floppies.

Just thought it would interest someone.
The mRNA COVID vaccines were the first mRNA vaccines approved for humans ever.
I’ve asked them about this, but they said they were too busy rolling out the internet service to consider any alternatives at the moment. I’ll keep hounding them until they relent!
While it wasn't $5k, I was in a situation where I was told that I'd get something specific if I fixed a particular bug, and then didn't get it.

OTOH, I have gotten bonuses after the fact that weren't talked about at all beforehand. IMO, that works out a lot better for everyone.

I've decided that promised bonuses mean nothing and are a sign of deceit (why bribe me to do my job?) and to absolutely ignore them.

I do very much appreciate the expected bonuses, though. I've had them both in cash and time off and I'm not even sure which I prefer.
Russia detains cyber-security tycoon Ilya Sachkov in treason case
I'd build / buy and renovate about 6 2bd homes (on x3 leverage) into luxury homes in Europe and third world countries in strategic touristy places. Then live off the income of those + paying the mortgages with it, all the while traveling and living between them. Have a dog and a girlfriend and live happily ever after. I'd probably get a range rover too.
People in technology fields absolutely have an obligation to talk about the morality of technology.

I'd highly recommend you to read Cat's Cradle if you haven't already. Carl Sagan also had something to say about this.

In lieu of that, one can meditate on this more condensed take:

> Don't say that he's hypocritical

> Say rather that he's apolitical

> "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

> That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

- Tom Lehrer
> not just nuking the carrier group

US/USSR were prepared for theatre level nuclear engagements, as long as not on USSR or US soil. I would not dismiss trading tactical nukes on third party soil if things get desperate. PRC SCS islands, US indo-pac bases, carrier groups are no brainers. Up to US bases in Japan and Australia. I think we dismiss low level nuke engagement at peril, any competent war planner will keep it in the repertoire.
Detect and prevent dependency confusion attacks on NPM
Using the most extreme possible examples to justify a policy.
> either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc.

This is the nature of the things we come to see as rights. Why is an X a 'right' and not just a nice idea? Because of a history of political entrepreneurs pushing, pushing, pushing against it -- it's just a reasonable tradeoff for this case, can't you see?

A right is a Schelling fence beyond which the 'reasonable' tradeoffs must face a much stronger presumption against them. Of course the world is complicated. One of the most salient complications is the ubiquity through history of clever people with justifications why they need power over others. When in this context you bring up the indisputable fact that no human question is 100% clear, the effect is to weaken the fence.
Emphasizing this quote:

However, cloth masks did reduce the overall likelihood of experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness during the study period.
Should YouTube censor ISIS propaganda or not?

If yes, how is this not a violation of the principles you've laid out?
Why the Most Addictive Apps Are Impossible to Put Down – CleverTap
The most addictive apps are designed to be just that. Here's how to apply the scientific principles that make apps addictive to improve engagement & retention.
Even 8chan contains more thought provoking two sided discussion than some <ahem> echo chambers.
Except you are missing a huge huge part of what you linked:

> We conclude that the reviewing process for the 2014 conference was good for identifying poor papers

When it comes to peer review that is the actual goal. Have a filter that prevents bad things from getting published.

In an ideal world we would have a process that allows good papers to be published as well.

However I think we can all agree that is a secondary concern. Especially since pre-publish announcements are common anyway, so it isn't like no one is looking at papers that aren't published.
>basically all of what I've seen is simply untrue. E.g. an article claiming there were more deaths due to covid vaccines than to covid

No, the claim is that statistically for every life saved via vaccination, more lives are lost due to vaccine complications, based on officially compiled numbers.

It occurs to me that most of the people arguing for vaccination are just as ignorant and faith based in their argumentation as the people they demonize for arguing against it. This is probably a consequence of the normal distribution of competence, and a significant argument against censoring dissent (dishonestly conflated with "misinformation"), because when ≈70% of the population is not competent enough to consume and evaluate literature, suppression of counter narratives becomes an oppressive tool of the establishment, even when done by so called "private" companies. Our economic system is conveniently organized such that going public for the funding necessary to compete with VC money subjects your company to the rule of an inevitably politically connected board.

It's telling that almost all of this recent censorship (not just regarding the COVID vaccine) aligns so neatly with leftist views. This top down authoritarianism is leading to a parallel society, encouraged by the pervasive breadth and depth of dissent suppression: if you have the "wrong" opinion, you cant post videos on social media, you cant host your own social media on cloud providers, you can't host your own servers because CC companies will refuse to service you...

The authoritarian dystopia has already arrived, not with the sort of force we were warned about, but with welcome cheers from a naive, docile populace.
In other words, solar panels and wind turbines are where we start the work. They still need to happen.

We can't just get from here to sustainability in one jump. Even if we could figure out how a sustainable civilization looks - which we can't, because it's too complex a challenge - we still couldn't just make all the changes happen at once. It's not how human societies work at scale.
The Barnes Foundation has (or at least used to have) a really great exhibit where they’d showcase the real art alongside a reproduction.
The example images look awful. If the site really has images of "people in suits doing business," why would you want them to be so ugly? I'm not a fan of such images, but if you are going to have them, they should at least look pleasant. These look awful.
What's worse is realizing that the majority of people in jail for selling even the smallest amount of weed are black, while the majority of people who own legal pot dispensaries churning out industrial levels of weed are white. Add in the famous Eichmann quote, and it really seems like this is a deliberate result of the system.
i think this can be extended beyond Nobel as many famous scientists use their large audience to promote e.g. political ideology, Noam Chomsky being the prime example.
Your argument is that a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection can not give another vaccinated person a breakthrough infection?

Obviously your anecdotal story is tragic. No denying. But the ends don't justify the means.

Most of these health workers have been on the frontlines since the beginning before the vaccine. Many already aquired COVID and have some natural immunity.

I leave you with this:

How about the story of the girl who died because there weren't enough healthcare workers to treat her in time because they were all fired?
Yeah, I did not expect the comments of a pro-offline-first article to be filled with complaints that he didn't consider lots of places don't have reliable internet!
Windows is just so much worse in every way, the idea that someone would prefer to use it over Linux as a desktop confounds me.

Linux: fast, private, under your control, user empowering.
Windows: slow, spyware, under microsofts control and works to wrench power from the user.

Just blows my mind.
As others have pointed out lossy compression will give a way better result. I feel like the author simply misses the aesthetic of the 90s internet and is trying to find any reason for it to make a return.
Imagine thinking that people don't take jobs because their foreclosure has been pushed out into the future. Would people without a home will be more or less likely to be hired?
Maybe I forgot, but I think they were operating both.
I completely agree that YouTube should absolutely be free to do this but they're obviously doing this because citizens and their own employees demand it. The movement away from free speech is caused by the growing number of people (including people in this very thread) who want YouTube to do this, YouTube acquiescing to their demands is just a symptom of this trend.

YouTube is the profit-driven canary in the coalmine. YouTube's business model naturally incentivizes more speech of all kinds. This crackdown indicates there is mounting pressure - from democratically elected governments, from HN commentators, from our friends and neighbors that regulate & patronize YouTube - to stop being tolerant of certain kinds of speech like antivax.
I wonder if you could just put a plow on the back and run it in reverse. As far as I know, electric vehicles can go just as fast in reverse as forward since there are no gears.
Twitter banning and censoring Trump was an extremely outrageous action. Only very short-sighted and brainwashed people cheer for it because they are unable to imagine whom this playform with enormous reach would ban next. What if it'll be your favourite candidate?

Of course, you'll say that your candidate will never break ToSs, but we've seen just today that these terms are rather random and can change on a whim.

Think just one step further into the future.
Instagram Reels are now widely available on Facebook in the US
:s/images/javascript
You need to understand that the people who are saying we must ban misinformation are the party apparatchiks, trying to argue in good faith with them is pointless. The only reason to engage is to show the silent majority that they aren't crazy for disagreeing with those in power.
> You can’t. That’s the point.

Hmm, funny. I'm pretty sure I could train a non-programmer to do a specialized type of programming task in a few months if it were a crisis even though that person doesn't have a computer science degree. I don't see why healthcare is so much more difficult to train temporary specialists. Didn't we do it during WW2 (rapidly train medical specialists in a matter of months, aka medics, without a 4 year degree)?

> Unless you’ve innovated around a crippling multi-state demand spike, during a general labour marked supply shortage, in a sector where getting things wrong is literally lethal and where people sue for malpractice even for sub-lethal errors despite the government mandated minimum qualification levels, I think you are making an error in thinking your experience is transferable.

Yeah that's the real problem. Any innovations that alleviate the problem are going to run afoul of some bureaucratic, regulatory, and legal red tape put in place over the last century. So let me rephrase - I could probably innovate and solve this problem if I were a medical professional. But not without running afoul of some red tape somewhere. But I say red tape is meant to be broken in times of crisis.
I wish more open source projects had an "enterprise" plan with a few inconsequential features and maybe priority support - just enough to justify a line item on a tech org's budget.
I'm certainly in favor of contributing to bail funds, which is a pretty basic part of the legal system (like it or not), and which is not even the same thing as legal-defense funding. It's quite milque-toast, yet ignored.

Bail was designed to ensure the defendant arrives at the trial by taking a fraction of their wealth as collateral.

Instead, we now live in a society where most americans cannot afford a surprise $500 bill. We're really stuck-in-first-gear here if this is what we settle for.
the part on headlines is brilliant! thank you. The cookbook looks interesting. How many pages is it?
Really the best way to go about this is a mixed license. If you want commercial users to pay then require them to pay.
She doesn't have a current defense in the court. The defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not media. The prosecution is presenting the evidence right now, she will have her turn afterwards.
So is every illness, potentially, and yet the world never cared before.
If you are at all interested in art forgery (or just good cinema) I highly recommend the Orson Welles film F for Fake. It’s a true story about how a man who faked a biography of Howard Hughes went to meet one of the greatest art forgers of the 20th century, all wrapped together with great commentary on the concepts of fakery and originality. Incredible film.

The entire thing used to be on YouTube but here’s the trailer:

https://youtu.be/twlA_yzagXo

Edit: Every Frame a Painting made a great analysis video on it too:

https://youtu.be/1GXv2C7vwX0
The absolute killer app is compilers, static analyzers, and similar. Other languages don't even come close for anything in that space.

However, I think that purely functional languages are useful for basically everything. Haskell is my general purpose language of choice, unless libraries or system constraints force me to another language.
Around 250.
That's just flat out unenforceable in California.
Maybe put dithering images outside the paywall and full pictures within and in your ad block placeholder a message that says pro users get the real images.
I had a root cause once that was a cable draped across the corner of a ventilation duct.

The duct would vibrate when the air was on, and the corner was pretty sharp, which caused the duct corner to 'saw' its way through the cable's insulation over time.

Took a while to isolate the problem to 'its between this box and this box' but was a pretty quick find after that :)
> I will only point out that it took Twitter years to ban Trump despite him violating their ToS almost on a daily basis.

They actually rewrote their ToS specifically to excuse not sanctioning his violations while continuing to sanction others without his institutional position for the same violations.
Noodling at some thoughts on how technology works --- is fundamental mechanisms, not what it is --- I'd come up with a list of eight factors that seemed central. And then thought for a few days and came up with a ninth: hygiene.

In building any technology, what comes to dominate after a time are the unintended or unwanted consequences. This is particularly true of any networked system, in which as the network grows, various cost functions emerge and begin to overwhelm the value prospects.

I suspect that those cost functions are both relatively constant per node, but also tend to increase over time. The result is that small networks can grow quickly (the large positive per-node values dominante the costs), but as the node-count rises, marginal value decreases (see Tilly-Odlyzko's refutation of Metcalfe's law: v = nlog(n)), and* the cost functions increase both as bad actors are attracted to the system and as interactions between nominally good-faith actors become increasingly high-friction.

The consequence is that a "no-moderation" or "light-moderation" policy works really well, until it suddenly doesn't.

This has parallels to other network-based structures, most notably cities. Without sewage, or crime, or public health, or waste-removal, or pollution-control systems, cities can grow fairly rapidly, up to some maximum viable size. After that point, not only do already-extant issues become intolerable (or more specifically: unsurvivable), but new harms co-evolve with the cities themselves to emerge within them. (See Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome for a wonderful exploration of this concept.)

For online UCG platforms, this presents as various forms of activity that directly attack trust and safety of the platform itself. Ultimately, growth of the platform is often limited by these effects.

Incidentally, a new professional organisation formed last year to address these issues specifically, the TSPA (Trust and Safety Professional Association). It's still finding its feet, though it's begun organising both a training curriculum and a library of practices and references on the issues, processes, considerations, and legal factors involved.

https://www.tspa.info/2020/06/17/new-organizations-dedicated...
> Is your claim that moderate voices are causing people to not get vaccinated then?

I suspect that's the case for the vast majority of the unvaccinated. Do you think most of the unvaccinated people are unvaccinated because of "metal chips in the vaccine" or "it's the serum of the devil"? Or do you think they are unvaccinated because they read up on the history of vaccines, talked to their doctors, etc?

> If that is the case maybe silencing them isn't a bad thing so that we can get past the pandemic rather than wallowing in "would we should we" territory.

But aren't we past the pandemic. I remember being told that we needed herd immunity. Remember "herd immunity"? It was all over the news and social media just a few months. Now we are way past herd immunity. It was the gold standard. Remember? To question it was to question science. But everyone forgot about herd immunity.

It's never good to silence moderate voices as it only leaves you the choice of extremes which tend to be wrong. And sadly, as it pertains to covid, the extremes have been wrong about covid - everything from death rate to mandates to metal chips...

Also, I can't think of another time moderate voices were silenced - other than the lead up to the 2nd iraq war when you absolutely could not question the lies about wmds. Can you?
I didn't get glasses until age 10 (grade 5), and more or less couldn't read what the teachers were writing on the blackboard before then.
Replying to myself, I think I got the first part of that wrong. Patronage used to be important for a long time.
In a graphic: India’s indigenous gun ecosystem
From what I've seen, they never lied about needing a mask. The early pandemic CBS interview with Fouci says wearing a mask is fine, but unnecessary for most people and would take masks from those who really need it. There was also a larger emphasis on sanitizing surfaces and avoiding face touching. This is because sars-cov-2 is more effective spreading infections as an airborn virus than expected. Once evidence showed otherwise, masking was recommended.

The lab leak theory shows a problem with human thought and why scientific methods are valuable. People focus on what's true, instead of eliminating what's impossible. To say the lab leak theory is a possibility is reasonable. However to say it might have spread to humans through another medium (eg, meat market) is also reasonable. To try and put any sort of probability between the two reasonable possibilities is a pointless endeavor. China is likely the only one with good enough evidence to say either way, and China isn't telling anyone else. Though even that doesn't say anything, because either way they wouldn't tell anyone else.

Big gatherings are bad, but the right to fight against tyranny is more important than the badness of the big gatherings. That is the context in which experts are not condoning BLM protests.

The problem is it's really hard to tell between a carefully considered expert opinion, and just someone talking out of their ass. It's also an evolving situation, with even experts trying to work with slow to come data. It's reasonable to say that people should focus on directing others to experts, and not and try to reinterpret or make predictions of their own.
> A mish-mash of incoherent UX executions where each app uses a GUI that doesn't quite match your OS and the whole experience is subpar because no boundaries are ever enforced.

This has nothing to do with, and isn't even exclusive to Linux. If you have an axe to grind, at least grind it well.
> Now private entities aren't aligning with a lot of people and they're shocked that corporations aren't the free speech utopia that they once thought.

I've worked at some of these companies so I can give you an insider perspective, because what you're saying isn't an accurate reflection of history. Maybe the internet wasn't a "Utopia" but compared to what it is now it certainly was.

In the tech community 5-10 years ago, all of us working for these larger platforms used to pride ourselves upholding free speech as a core value. At that time the only content banned were threats, copyright violations, child pornography, etc. Only after the 2016 election rolled around did everything change. The problem is that it's an incredibly slippery slope and once you start compromising your moral compass for "the right reasons", it quickly snowballs into something much worse than anticipated.