skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That article is really interesting and something that, as an academic scientist, is pretty obvious. In theory, we have peer-review to keep ourselves honest, but as the article points out (maybe unintentionally), bad science gets through that process (really, as long as the "data" look believable enough and the "experiments" are methodologically sound and the interpretation of the "data" is also reasonable, it's reasonably undetectable to peer-reviewers).

There are a lot of problems with the way science happens, and a lot of bad data is never found out, because it can be hard to show, definitively, that it was fabricated or manipulated without someone from the lab in question speaking up about it (which probably doesn't happen enough).

At a certain point, though, there's too much information & data, good or otherwise, for any one person to parse. That's sort of why we have journalists: to acquire first-hand accounts and deliver them to a broader audience. The problem really arises when journalists significantly editorialize or disregard conflicting information. The Wakefield paper is a great example of that. Some journalists' cum pundits' gross negligence with regard to the retraction of that paper constitutes misinformation, but has shown to be very difficult to discredit because those actors abuse what we've all agreed is the role of the journalist: to give us valid accounts of actual events.

The study discussed in the article you cited even used a real, but heavily criticized (unknown to the participants) scientific study in their experiment. I think the question is "what is the amount of effort that it is reasonable to expect a lay-person to put into the in/validation of information presented to them?" with the caveat that trust is generally earned over time, but once earned, can be abused (and I use the word abuse very purposefully here, because it is a violation of one's relationship in a harmful manner). Should one be expected to more rigorously critique the statement of a trusted peer because of the potential for abuse?
You’re on target with this. Companies can’t contribute to random OSS on GitHub. In order to receive donations from large corporations (money and/or commits), OSS must be affiliated with a nonprofit that is properly structured and has recognized governance practices in place.

My sense is that a large company prefer, and feel more comfortable, partnering with organizations like the Linux Foundation or Apache Software Foundation.
Wokeism pushed by companies is two things.

First, it's a misdirection. It's a bargain with the social far-left in an attempt to reduce the power of the economic far-left given that those two groups overlap so much. We will go along with your culture war because it's the cheapest alternative available to us.

Second, it's the first-mover problem and a coordination problem. Nobody's brand wants to be singled out by a social media mob. Being around the 5th percentile makes you a target. So everyone tries to be around the median. The median keeps shifting up and up, as the people in the 5th percentile keep re-upping the ante as they chase the ever-increasing median. It's just a consequence of social media mobs targeting the bottom percentiles for brand damage. Their only other option is to regime shift into full blown anti-woke, which simply isn't viable for many companies. If all companies simultaneously shifted downwards (by becoming not-woke), there wouldn't be a problem, but that coordination can't happen with heterogeneous entities.
You ever heard of the YouTube channel "dick or dildo"? YouTube doesn't remove content that is not respectable, gross, unsettling, no the criteria always seems to be certain opinions and lines of discussion. Advertisers have advertised on YouTube just fine with all the crazy wacko content on it before. " targeted advertising" is wonderful in the sense that advertisers get to decide what sorts of content their ads appear on, so they never have to worry about being associated with something they don't want to be.

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense under even the lightest scrutiny, it doesn't go along with what we actually see YouTube doing.
Exactly. But would it get to the point that not fixing/preventing deafness, blindness, ASD, etc. will also be impossible and/or socially stigmatized?
The Simula VR window manager is actually written in Haskell ;)
Not really though. If you go back 2 years, people who were opposed to mandatory vaccinations were generally people who thought their children shouldn't be required to get vaccinated against measles. Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy
Tesla anticipated this, though, such laws don't get passed fast.

They don't have the software, the core of the product.

And the fsd beta testers had to sign NDAs.
They also have a web site and it's exactly what you'd hope for https://www.bohmerwald.nl

(the HTML must be from a 1990s version of Word!)
Totally agree. I can't stand Uber and AirBnb because they mess with people in a bad way. Their sins are well documented. I'm fine with investors losing some $$$ on companies like Juicero. Capitalism needs success and failure to be effective and the death of $699 juice squeezers are an acceptable casualty.
Eddie Izzard did an amusing sketch about bees dancing. https://youtu.be/m8p6AixKWIU?t=210
> What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or anything. Weird.

The thing is, the primary goal of an investor is not to invest in companies that are honest and actually do what they claim. The goal is to invest in a company that reaches a valuation high enough to let them recoup their investment at a profit.

If that valuation happens through fraud, hype, destroying the environment, whatever, that doesn't really factor in. It probably is the case that successfully doing what the company claims has a positive correlation with higher valuation, but it's not strictly necessary.

The failure mode for the investors in Theranos is not that it was fraudulent. It's that the fraud was discovered before they could cash out. They didn't need to believe that Theranos was honest, they just needed to believe that other later investors would believe they were honest.
What changed in 2020? Do you not remember the Dixie Chicks getting blacklisted for speaking against George Bush, Janet Jackson being deplatformed from record labels for showing a nipple on television, the LA DNC in 2000 cordoning off protesters into "free speech zones" 4 blocks away from the convention, gangsta rap and heavy metal being censored in the 80s and 90s, pushes for civil rights being met with dogs and firehoses in the 60s, Lenny Bruce being imprisoned for stand up comedy, interracial marriage being illegal, teachers being fired for being gay, American citizens having all of their property confiscated because they were ethnically Japanese? We had anti-sedition laws passed within 22 years of the Constitution being ratified.

Most of these things that aren't a matter of private freedom of association for platform owners tend to eventually get struck down because the Supreme Court can somewhat reliably be counted on to eventually respect the Constitution, but the general public and elected politicians have never supported free speech or free anything. I would say almost the exact opposite of what you said. People only claim to love free speech when something they want to say is unpopular or suppressed. Almost nobody just supports it generally. The ACLU used to be pretty reliable about this, i.e. defending the KKK and Nazis, but I'm not even really sure where they stand any more.

The average citizen doesn't give a crap about any abstract ideals at all. They just want to live their lives and possibly raise a family in an atmosphere not dissonant with their own cultural traditions and beliefs. Allowing people with other traditions and beliefs to spread those via public advocacy, art, or any other means that may lead to them being mainstream or even dominant is antithetical to that.
YT: "Im really sorry you feel this way"

YT: "K,bye"
They're charging for "full self-driving" separately from the car, so I think it's fair to put it in the same bucket.
> IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets, but when it comes to life and safety - bad news.

She's not on trial for defrauding patients and putting their life and safety at risk. She's on trial for defrauding investors and putting their money at risk.
Here it is - https://github.com/bbilly1/tubearchivist
Even for racism and homophobia has now merged through grey areas. Someone who disagrees with mass immigration is a racist and someone who is pro the sanctity of marriage between man and woman (not that you can't get legal rights as a same sex couple) is now homophobia. There's so much nuance in under these big umbrellas that no one care to have a dialogue about, they just want clear cut right or wrong with the world is filled in fuzzy lines.
> the device doesn't allow searching within your handwritten notes, a feature I use regularly in GoodNotes on my iPad.

I wonder if people are downvoting because they missed the reason why you wanted to return it. Anyways it seems like useful info to know how hard it is to return it. You could always try to sell it on craiglist or ebay.
Is the polio and mRNA vaccine series really comparable? I was under the impression if you wanted to you could probably enumerate some huge differences.

Perhaps we should start by admitting there is no long term data on the Covid vaccines as a whole truth and we honestly start from there?

How about a steelman argument? Just don’t put it on YouTube, it would be censored.
Industry complains actually the whole time about the lack of workers…

"Fachkräftemangel" is a kind of meme in the media by now.

What they really want is cheap workers. So they try hard to create an illusion that there are constantly people missing.

Sure, it's actually never easy to get good people. But the real reason for the constant loud complains is to keep wages as low as possible.
From the article:

"There are existing distributed file systems for the cloud as well as off-the-shelf FUSE modules for S3. We chose to enhance MezzFS instead of using these other solutions because the cloud storage system where packager stores its output is a custom object store service built on top of S3 with additional security features. Doing so has the added advantage of being able to design and tune the enhancement to suit the requirements of packager and our other encoding applications."
WTF is the personal information dashboard for your terminal
I don't disagree with the criticism that people claiming "I fucking love science" and "follow the science" are often (usually?) themselves not particularly scientific. On lousy image boards, very clever points do exist, but they're mixed in seamlessly with very poor points.
What does being elected or not have to do with it? Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy, but somehow I doubt you'll think they should have a right to harass you.

And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created.

The worst thing that can happen is for an injustice to be prolonged just because it only affects a select group of people that those in power dislike.
Innovation involves working around limitations. I already conceded that medical staff was a limitation. So how do you work around it? Training covid-specialized temps, perhaps? I don't know the answer because I'm not an expert in that problem domain. But I've innovated around similar limitations in my current domain expertise so I believe it is possible.
One thing begets the other though: more heavy SUV/Trucks the worse the wear on the road.
Eh as mentioned above, folks who already want to be convinced Bill Gates is implanting microchips in vaccines to track their movement (as they complain about this via their phone on facebook lol), aren't going to change their minds.

Deplatforming works and helps stop disinfomration. The racist Richard Spencer and the rightwing clown Milo Yiannopoulos both say they're broke and unemployed now thanks to everyone banning their racist content. These things are fine to do and work.
Anyone notice that liberal democracy seems to have a strong reliance on illiberalism to maintain its stronghold?
First they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak out

Because I was not an Alex Jones viewer.
I don't know the details, but Guido has written Mondrian, a code review system for use at Google - https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2006/11/google-mondrian.ht... - it was later replaced by something else, in a different language.
spaCy might be a good example. It's a natural language processing library that's written in Cython, so yeah, a lot of the hard computation work is essentially just calling into C code.

But it's usually being driven from a Python script that's in charge of loading the data and feeding it into spaCy's processing pipeline. That code is subject to the GIL, and, since it cannot be effectively multithreaded, it tends to become the program's bottleneck.

So what you typically end up doing instead is using multiprocessing to parallelize. But that comes with its own costs. You end up wasting a lot of computrons on inter-process communication.
This is partially why I moved over to Elixir. I'm just as productive and its dynamic, but the data is immutable.
What parties motivate Google? For example: does the US Government make requests to Google directly? Do advertisers? Lobbyists? Wealthy individuals? Friends and family of higher-ups? Is the source completely internal to Google? I'd love to see more about the process these ideas go through.
>Can it get worse? Because it looks like whatever good guys are left don't have a voice anymore.

Yikes... I can't believe you even typed that... inviting it to happen.

It can always get worse. There's always whistle-blowing, which would stop if all the good people left.
I know a few people who've gone there and left within 1-2 years. I know exactly 1 person who is a very nice and competent engineer who was miserable there for their first year but they eventually found a team that they were happy with and they are still there today, probably 3-4 years later. But, yes, it seems to me that, especially given that last anecdote, the place is awash with egotistical assholes.
look on https://bitchute.com or https://brandnewtube.com and you will lots of information why I will not being taking an injected experimental medical procedure . No way no how!
It didn't, a landing page is where the user lands after marketing drives them there.

usatoday.com is the home page, usatoday.com/subscribe is a landing page.
> Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.

Wait, you can't just posit something, argue as if it's fact, and then ask someone who challenges it to do the legwork of disproving it. If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous to then say "happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise"; I'm the one that asserted that.

> They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point.

There's a difference between losing eyeballs to bad faith actors because they steal some of your market, and having your market banned because there are also bad faith actors in it.

I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton due to forced labor, but wouldn't say that the solution to that is too ban all cotton products, even those responsibly produced.

Perhaps a more relevant analogy: Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf, but I'd hope they wouldn't ban books discussing why Hitler's platform and rhetoric were appealing to the Germans of the time. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't want even Mein Kampf to be banned: silencing bad or evil ideas makes them enticing (note the popularity of "check out/buy a banned book" events throughout libraries and bookstores).

Good faith actors being harmed by bad faith actors is always going to be a thing. Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors seems like something we shouldn't be okay with, though.
Yes, exactly. Making something illegal is serious.

The result of making something like this illegal is:
1. Person is not allowed to talk OR
2. Person is allowed to talk but is now compelled to only espouse a message approved by the government.

Illegal speech in the US is speech which does harm or has a direct incitement to harm such as specifically calling for a violent action, shouting fire in a crowded theater, or lying about someone to harm their reputation and cause financial impact.

To make something like denialism illegal would require you to show that, by allowing someone to say it, they are causing direct and immediate harm. That's not the case here at all. Saying the holocaust didn't happen doesn't cause people to then go commit genocide. At worst it convinces people some horrific event didn't happen, but that horrific event is still horrific conceptually.

Denying vaccines work may convince people not to get them so maybe you'd argue direct harm there? But it's not clear to me how you can measure the harm since it's arguable that said unvaccinated person may get covid and be totally unphased. What about those people that got covid prior to the vaccine? How could you argue direct harm from them when they already have the antibodies sans the vaccine?
I don't have numbers, but there's a substantial population of people wary of the covid vaccines that aren't wary of polio, measles, or even flu vaccines.
Given that there have been 20 million vaccine doses administered in the US during the month of September, it would seem that you are wrong. The vaccine has been available for many months. Certainly some of those 20 million doses represent people who have been hesitating for one reason or another.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/28/1031961327/elizabeth-holmes-t...

Basically: yes I did do this, but I was abused by Balwani and as a result I was in an impaired state of mind.
> What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or anything. Weird.

When you're sat on stage next to Bill Clinton people assume someone somewhere has done some due diligence already. Turns out there are a lot more jobs out there to do with marketing, hype, and event planning than there are doing fact checking.
Because it's the "nerdy" software engineers' version of social media: a way to exercise some ego/narcissism.
> People who spend a lifetime learning about something will, on average, make better decisions about that thing then you or I.

I'm not convinced this is true. If you spend a lifetime doing something then I'd agree you'd be better than average at it. In such cases experts do not face much scrutiny, there's little doubt on a pilot's skill at flying a plane and no sane person thinks they are better at chess than Magnus Carlsen.

What is happening now is that we are taking people who have merely studied something extensively and asserting that knowledge gives them superior insight into decisions about the future. These "experts" might even be directionally right more often than an average person but that isn't enough. If expertise through a lifetime of learning leads to your confidence in your own abilities outpacing your actual abilities than they are going to make worse decisions than a lay person who is cautious in the face of uncertainty. Examples of this effect are abundant, the greatest team of financial experts ever assembled (LTCM) managed to lose every penny and then some while my parents 401k remained solvent.

There's good reason to believe a life insulated from the ups and downs of normal life leads to suboptimal risk judgement compared to a less educated person. There's a clear assymetry between overskepticism and overconfidence, the latter hurts you far more than the former. To suggest that skepticism is the more dangerous of the two denies the reality of most of the largest disasters of the last century.
Dropping touch buttons does sound like a major regression to me.
Note that this is specifically the case in regards to the Delta variant. All prior variants showed the vaccine being much more effective than infection immunity.

Although, even with this, getting both still provides even greater immunity with no downside.

(Plus I think far too many people will say "oh, I had a cold sometime in the last year but didn't get tested. That was probably COVID so I have an excuse to not get vaccinated now.")
Counting cells may shed light on how cancer spreads
> Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens

Oh, come on. A Youtube video is culture just like ancient Greek plays are culture, or Sumerian cuneiform tablets.

There is an overconsumption problem, but even if it wasn't there, that'd still be the culture that we'd want to at least archive.
> Most vaccines do fully stop the spread, even for measles,

No, they don't. [0][1]

From [1]

> Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.

Obviously those 3% and 7% do spread, even though the symptoms are milder. For the 97 and 93% ones there's indeed very limited (if any) shedding [3].

Now that's holding different bars, because asymptomatic measles infections are less contagious by themselves, regardless of vaccination status, unlike COVID-19 which is still relatively contagious while asymptomatic. So you're attributing a positive point of measles infections as a fault of the COVID-19 vaccines, which is, as you might see, a pretty misinformed take.

Also, sterilizing immunity as you seem to understand doesn't really exist, in case that's the misconception you have [2]. In the end it's all about viral load, route of exposure, and level and type of immunity. A mucosal vaccine would behave more in the way your expecting intramuscular ones to work[4].

[0] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login...

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...

[3] https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/8...

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00583-2
People are opposed to being vaccinated because of a coordinated media campaign put out by elements in the mainstream media - not least from outlets like Fox whose employees are 90% vaccinated, while daily tests are mandated for the rest.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/15/fox-news-vacci...

Being strongly opposed to something does not make opposition legitimate or warranted. It's perfectly possible to believe something which is absolutely harmful and objectively wrong on a mass scale. Such beliefs are not protected by law or by any reasonable definition of ethical morality.

So having said that - why do you think Fox and co. require tests and vaccinations for their own people while broadcasting anti-vaxxer denialism to their viewers?
Social sciences, and, yes.