skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would settle for a breakup of the tech monopolies. In the absence of market competition regulation is required.
It gets more interesting. There used to be no internet in some corners of a fast food restaurant I frequent. But then I bought a new phone and now all of a sudden there is internet. I don't know what it is, is it the antenna layout, or is it the modem hardware or firmware, or did the carrier do something on their side, or is it something else entirely.
But surely fewer channels means fewer recruits? Ultimately it's about what kind of content these platforms want to publish though.
do you have a landing page you built after taking this course?
Given that the HN post has 20x the engagement of the twitter post, I can't decide if he's a mad lad or a sad lad.
I agree that the prototypes in the wild was done improperly. If it's a prototype used for data gathering with a big "these are prototypes!" waiver, then that's one thing. I'm not sure how they were positioned in the stores they were placed in, if they were marketed as a 100% accuracy miracle box or an up-and-coming technology that still has to have kinks worked out. In either case I'm struggling that this is jail time criminal; I think at best it's a civil issue.
> You want the government to start mandating that a company

There is already an established history of requiring certain large communication platforms, to act a certain way.

They are called common carrier laws, and already apply to things like the telephone network.

Sure, they don't currently apply to other things, but the law could be updated, so that they do.

Philosophically, common carrier laws are uncontroversial, and already apply to major communication platforms, so you don't get to pretend like this is unprecedented.
"Someone should kill (some public figure)" - opinion/idea

"I'm going to kill (some public figure) tomorrow at (some event)" - threat
I think you're somewhat making an argument that the "means" are justified if the end is noble. I think the whole discussion revolts around the several issues with that "system" or "philosophy" here in the Valley.

I personally don't think it's the right way to do things. Big fraud, small lies (fraud), it's all pretty bad.
Well said! As a Canadian living in the US, I encountered the "us vs. them" culture as very subtle but real. It's like everything is a football game here, and that is the only way to frame things such that it gets attention.
Anki is pretty cool.
I used Mosquitto years ago for a few years and never had any issues with it...
Do you have any familiarity with case law? The courts major job is to deal with the shades of grey that’s our reality.
Yet another artifact of our gerontocracy
We need to worry about the wackos especially, since these tend to network and radicalize more due to their skewed perception.

A prerequisite to the tasteful application of censorship in these cases is a functioning scientific and moral apparatus and strong civil society to keep things in the public interest.
The author seems to be generalizing from his own particular experience. This is your strategy guide if you were born a straight white cisgender neurotypical male to middle-class parents who remain upwardly mobile and indoctrinate you in a respectable sect of Christianity.
YouTube does not deserve our trust.

We've seen repeatedly over the last two years truthful and helpful warnings classified as dangerous misinformation by big tech platforms.

First they censored people warning us about COVID itself, then they censored people saying we should wear masks, then they censored any talk of it coming from a lab.

Every time citizens try to spread the truth, they are censored. Sometimes the truth becomes so obvious that they can't censor anymore.

Facebook is directly responsible for censoring American expat groups in China that were trying to warn their families about COVID in late 2019.

Facebook has no problem shielding criminals and dictators for money[1]. They will eagerly censor innocent people speaking truth to power.

Corporate America will protect its interests from the people. They are invested in a new normal, and China, and they will censor us to protect their investments.

Even if something was wrong with the vaccines, or there was some effective new treatment, they would censor it regardless. So why should we ever big tech platforms the benefit of the doubt?

[1]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/03/sheryl-sandberg...
This is (or was) a pretty common network design called "router on a stick"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_on_a_stick

I wouldn't have thought to do it with a Pi, though. Neat.
The problem with Spreading in LD & Policy debate is it's actually trivial to counter; but since it's still primarily focused as the approach, people's usual response is to do it themselves. LD & Policy both 'require' a virtue and criterion being evaluated, and spreading has the unintentional effect of spreading an argument too thin and ignoring that base virtue/criterion, leaving it weak and unsupported.

The easiest way to not get burried in shit isn't to dig yourself out or fling it back, but to side step it...

But tactics like this are actually at the core as to why I don't believe the author of the article is actually talking about debate (instead about discussions, dialectics, etc); since debate - at least how we establish it in both school and what we'll generously describe as 'debates' at the legislative level - is solely about 'winning' the argument, even if there's no win to be had.
And yet it's still in a contract. Just because it's unenforcable doesn't mean you're not going to have a shit time dragging your employer to court over it.
That would only work for the largest companies hiring for the largest FOSS projects, without some sort of independent administration.
It is hard to make the comparisons I would like to make mostly because of the piss poor way the data are disseminated (or not disseminated).

For example, the CDC overwrites the previous information with every week's update. That is why the repo exists. To preserve any time series information in one place with a verifiable way to extract it out of ever-changing HTML pages and put it in a table.

In theory, the CDC ought to be able to put the relevant information in a table. At a minimum, we'd need `date`, `locality`, age distributions of fully, partially, and never vaccinated populations, age distribution of people who are hospitalized due to COVID19, and age distribution of people who died from COVID19.

Ideally, we'd have a data set consisting of one row per hospitalization/death with relevant dimensions such as age, sex, first shot date, second shot date, type of vaccine, locality, other conditions etc.

But, we do not. Because the bureaucracy has not deemed it appropriate to collect or share that information.

Instead, we need to rely on free form HTML pages where the provenance of the data are not clear.

What I have done is made visible one bit of information that would otherwise not be available: The normalized rate of fully vaccinated people being hospitalized or dying from the disease against which they are fully vaccinated has been steadily increasing over time.

The main reason is that the vaccines are not as effective as the 95% number that has been flouted time and again. Of course, it takes time for a person to be exposed, diagnosed, hospitalized, and maybe die, so the revelation has been happening over time instead of instantaneously.

> because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data.

If I hadn't taken the snapshots and extracted the information from those pages, there would be no time series of breakthrough hospitalization and death rates anywhere. It seems to me it is worth something to save that information.

Plus, Biden told us the rate of hospitalization from COVID19 among the fully vaccinated was 1/160,000. The real number is 10 times that[1]. Isn't it worth something to know this?

[1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-4NQBFWEAMzATQ?format=png
Have fun implementing all the overhead just communicating with those workers. That's a serialisation pass, a serialisation pass and two event queues, all just so your application doesn't lock up.
I personally agree with you. Issue is that this view is not shared by the majority of the population. Even naked female nipples are still somehow offensive to some people.

Imagine being called ISISTube. This wouldn't be good for business especially with the family oriented crowd.

RIP LiveLeak.
Imagine if they used their powers to shut down something that's actually harmful, like, I don't know, sex trafficking.

If they put as much energy into stifling human trafficking as they did dissenting covid opinions, we might make a dent in it.
perhaps this is something DAOs can fix.
It is illegal in many places not to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. If you could transmit HIV by just being in the same room with someone for 15 minutes, then absolutely you should be required to disclose it.
You can't get herd immunity with a virus that evolves this fast and can persist in animal reservoirs with a leaky vaccine.
Were they the first ones to do it?
Yes, this looks pretty much like my version.

Maybe I'm just nit-picky, but I do quite clearly see greenish squares, especially on the forehead and nose area.

Probably not enough to catch my eye, but strong enough that looking at the picture for 5 seconds I would say "boy this was compressed way too much".
Show HN: Wellbeing analytics app for software engineers
This last point and the new york times article are a great example of this corruption and corporate interests.

The bastards at the helm CANNOT be trusted.
> Logos, Ethos, Pathos: you need all three. "This is true. I am trustworthy. This true thing is important."

This ivermectin thing basically proves that logos isn't useful. Ethos + Pathos alone can convince a large population of people.

The Apple "Reality Distortion Field" was never about logic. It was about making people feel good about buying Apple products. That's fine, because Apple has decent enough products (I don't like them myself, but I can see why some others would like them).

But today, we can apply the "Reality Distortion Field" to any subject. Most recently: ivermectin.

-------------

What I don't get: why are people choosing to push snake oil (like ivermectin), instead of pushing the drugs that do work (3 different vaccines, dexamethasone, and monoclonal antibodies)?

Society has developed working treatments for COVID19: dexamethasone cut the death rate in half IIRC, and monoclonal antibodies cut it in half yet again. And yet, people are seeking treatments that straight up have no evidence of working.

I can put papers up for the efficacy of dexamethasone + monoclonal antibodies, and how this cocktail saves the lives of countless people across this country. But then I'm suddenly left in a "Russet's teapot" scenario where I'm apparently supposed to prove-a-negation when discussing ivermectin (even if countless papers fail to distinguish ivermectin from the null-hypothesis).

People's brains turn off. Because today's reality distortion fields / marketing / propaganda are much, much stronger than logic.

---------

Let me tell you how to do things in today's world.

1. Automatically find the people who have the poorest logic. Use ads, memes, and other such "low-quality" discussion points to find the lowest functioning brains. For example, clickbait headlines or "Nigerian Prince" scams. The dumber the argument, the better.

2. Reasonable people will ignore you. The only people who will interact with you are people with weaker argument skills. Spend as much time convincing _this_ group of your benefits.

3. Make it fun: give them memes to share with their friends. Even if its a bad / crappy argument, that's okay. That's what memes are about.

4. Sit back and relax as your crowd automatically spreads whatever argument you want amongst their friends and family. Now they're doing the hard work for you.

5. Bonus points: get enough people moving as a crowd, and even smart people start to get drawn into the masses. You'll start finding apologists who make better arguments on behalf of you. Keep up with the meme culture and pick/choose the best arguments. Crowdsource your marketing: the memes that become popular are the arguments you want to use.

At no point is "working" on logos actually beneficial to building a RDF (reality distortion field). You can build ethos + pathos simultaneously by just seeding opinions into a crowd through meme culture.

Bonus points#2: Use really, really bad arguments (World is flat. Lets to go Mars. 9/11 was a hoax. Hydroxychloroquine can save you from COVID19) as practice. The better you get at seeding bad arguments, the better you get at seeding any argument.
Youtube can do whatever it wants, but by taking this political stance, it creates a precedent that other actors will use to ask it to censor other political content.

I'm not anti-vax, I've had dozen of vaccines including covid, but I still think anti-vaxers should be able to express themself. Who knows, one day I may realize some doubts were justified.
The headline is an easy thing to explain [0], but the article has nothing to do with the headline.

[0] to wit:

You cannot resolve “ought” questions with “is” facts,

Political disputes are almost universally clashes of “ought” beliefs (even when rhetorically framed as being about “is” facts to convince people of different “ought” beliefs to sign on)

Science addresses “is” facts.

Therefore, science cannot resolve most political disputes.
They optimise for engagement. I engage with content farms.
Right. Here's another branch of the same government that holds a patent for "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" from 2003 (filed in '99).

Abstract: Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH 3 , and COCH 3.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6630507-B1

Patent showing medical value in one hand, "no accepted medical use" in the other.
Are you trying to say that Siemens MES on silverlight isn't innovative?
If you truly think this point of view is the right thing, consider replacing the word "vaccination" with "war". e.g. "Is your claim that moderate voices are causing people to hurt the war effort? If that is the case maybe silencing them isn't a bad thing".

If you allow corporations and governments to censor reasonable and moderate opinions at this juncture don't be shocked when it's used in the future in a context that you don't like, when a sufficiently large surveillance and technological state leaves you powerless to do anything about it.
If I understand correctly, the answer is "they probably did need to, but didn't bother".

You'll sometimes see articles say "these states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal at the federal level". If the DEA did choose to try and enforce marijuana prohibition in one of these states, the state would be able to sue, making the argument that the US constitution does not give this power to the federal government. The federal government would probably argue that it did have this power under the Commerce Clause.

My understanding is that the DEA has avoided putting itself in a position where this could be litigated.
> Posturing loudly and demonstrating confidence seems to trump all of the other principles for many.

Nice word choice.
We should not be building our infrastructure to rely on the incidental beneficence of the oligarchy. We should build tools for decentralized permissionless economic coordination. Quadratic funding as used in Gitcoin and others is promising.
>and wonder why we didn't have the modern, flat, solid color designs that are fashionable today back then.

A lot of UI design on computers of the era was flat colors, maybe with a mild gradient. Go look up screenshots from Windows 3.1. Everything is flat grey or white. Windows 9x wasn't really much better, except it had that ugly solid teal background.

Also, dithering on a CRT produced a very different effect from dithering on a high-res LCD.
You took the words from my mouth. Isn't this obvious?
> "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?"

Exactly, I think that's the crux of it
It's better for certain types of pain management than opioids (and way less risky than them), seems to be at least fairly effective as an anti-anxiety drug (look into stats on the percentage of Americans who are on prescription anti-anxiety meds—it's probably more than you expect), and, from my own experience, is vastly better than any of the prescription or OTC sleep aids I've tried, with less-scary common side effects as a bonus on top of the greater efficacy and better results the next morning (zero extra grogginess/hangover, provided I get the dose right).

[EDIT] I may be understating the sleep-aid thing—just knowing that I've got a bag of gummies and that if I pop one a couple hours before bed I will fall asleep quickly that night, with minimal ill effects, does wonders for my state of mind throughout the day. Even having prescription pills for it before didn't, both because their effects felt more like "being drugged", so, seemed scarier/more-harmful, and because I knew I'd wake up the next morning feeling like shit, even if I got a full night's sleep.

Actually, here's another thing: it's almost certainly less harmful to your health to get high semi-regularly than to get drunk semi-regularly. Even if all cannabis did was replace a measurable percentage of alcohol use, I'd be very surprised if that didn't improve population-wide health markers, and that's just from its recreational use. Not a medicinal use, but still an improvement to population health.
Sounds like you only read the title. The OP is planning on living off his savings for a while. I'm sure he would love for sponsorship to make his work self-sustaining, but he would settle for paying a few bills.
One could say the current socialist state of academia got it's start in the 70s.
My take is that marijuana's medical benefits are small, but greater than alcohol's. I can't think of a single metric by which marijuana is worse for a person than alcohol, so if we allow alcohol, there's no reason we shouldn't also allow marijuana.

Even more: there's basically zero medical benefit to tobacco, and if there are 1 or 2 areas where it's slightly beneficial, there are a thousand where it's vastly worse. If tobacco isn't a schedule 1 drug, there's no way in hell marijuana should be.

I don't use marijuana and have no personal stake in this. If it were federally legalized today, my own personal life wouldn't change a bit. I just think it's ridiculous that we're clutching pearls about whether marijuana is good for you when other things that are objectively much worse for you are perfectly legal.
I see this all the time...

I work in medical research (basic science, not clinical), and I see people "cite" papers, based solely on their titles, without understanding, or likely even reading, the nuanced findings of the actual papers.

It's dangerous because it gives people, often with secondary agendas, the illusion of scientific backing when there really isn't any (or when it's far more nuanced).

I'll just note that I am still in favor of open over closed, but I think we're lagging in scientific literacy currently.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap Sets Unwanted Record: Most Cases with Financial Conflicts
I tend to disagree, this was true few years ago but there are now tons of frameworks / boiler-plates which also enable devs to launch fast and stay fast e.g Phoenix

Yes, Rails is very mature but the difference is not that huge anymore.
Yes? I understand what courts do, my only point was that setting out two extreme situations where a certain right may be suspended doesn't constitute "fair weather" in my eyes.
This is cool, I hadn't seen it until now. For those interested in a similar but more distributed option, hypercore-protocol will soon have multiwriter primitives!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-D4yY1H48
I think it does happen by itself. After all, normally focusing your mind on a task full time does lead to superior knowledge and capability, and academics/government officials are able to spend all day on whatever their given topic is.

The problem is it's not sufficient to have time and money. You also need to be in an environment where you're expected to deliver genuine truth, and there are rewards for doing so and penalties for not doing so. And in the public/academic sector these things are lacking, which is sufficient to overpower the specialising effect of full time employment.
> Png compresses badly when the image contains too many different colors.

Old trick to squeeze a few kb out of a png: Use Posterize filter from Photoshop, with very light settings. Basically it will just flatten the number of colors.
Or maybe its politics:

"“Many of us were saying let’s use [the vaccine] to save lives, not to vaccinate people already immune,” says Marty Makary, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University."

...

"As more US employers, local governments, and educational institutions issue vaccine mandates that make no exception for those who have had covid-19,8 questions remain about the science and ethics of treating this group of people as equally vulnerable to the virus—or as equally threatening to those vulnerable to covid-19—and to what extent politics has played a role."

...

"Not one of over 1300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study"

...

"Real world data have also been supportive.Several studies (in Qatar, England, Israel, and the US) have found infection rates at equally low levels among people who are fully vaccinated and those who have previously had covid-19. Cleveland Clinic surveyed its more than 50 000 employees to compare four groups based on history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status. Not one of over 1300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study.

...

Researchers concluded that that cohort “are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” In Israel, researchers accessed a database of the entire population to compare the efficacy of vaccination with previous infection and found nearly identical numbers. “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals,” they concluded."

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
That's a very neat trick. Thank you. I think I will use just that. I don't have much space for proper networking gear, so this will be perfect for me. Maybe with something more buff (an Intel NUC ?)