skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't doubt it. It sounds horrific, and I hope you land elsewhere. Your tenure of ~2 years give or take is very close to Facebook's ~2.5 years average. I'll only compare Amazon to Facebook in this case because both are known to have engineering teams / cultures that can be very results driven all else be damned.
There is no strict dividing line due to gene flow as a result of gradual migration patterns over the last few thousand years.

However, the existence of a dividing line shouldn't be a requirement for a useful definition of race that admits the existence of average-level genetic differences; i.e. differences in gene frequency that lead to real and meaningful differences on average, that we can observe & that matter to real-world outcomes.

That quote you shared sets up an overly strict definition of "separate racial groups" that seems designed to guarantee the conclusion of "they don't exist". The sneaky word they've used is "separate", it's a rhetorical trick that allows them to unfairly use zero allele frequency as the requirement which is guaranteed not to be met even with very small amounts of gene flow.

> race primarily divided up based on skin tone

> race is a cultural construct.

I don't agree that race is (or at least, should be) primarily defined by skin color. Racists might do that, but I don't wish to argue their perspective with you, I am arguing my perspective.

Some groups of South East Asians share the same skin tone as Africans, but Africans have no Neanderthal ancestry and some of these South East Asian groups have high Denisovan ancenstry. These are genetic differences between these two groups that have the same skin tone.

Ashkenazi Jews and whites of European descent share the same skin color, but differ in certain genetic diseases that are more prevalent in one versus the other. These are genetic differences.

The existence of these average-level genetic differences is proof that race is not just a cultural construct, even if it is in part a cultural construct only insofar as it plays itself out in everyday perception and discourse.
Adding a flag to allow people to write stackoverlow is perfectly reasonable, the default should not allow non-expert programmers to waltz into issues like this.
https://reddit.com/r/datahoarder

https://archive.org
The problem is that legitimate public debate has been fully warranted within the context of the pandemic response already - see the initial WHO recommendations not to close borders (closing borders was effective), the failure of the WHO to give useful advice about masks (even cotton ones worn without a tight seal work to a degree), and the failure of the media to accurately represent scientific consensus on whether there was a lab leak (it's very hard to find strong evidence either way).

There seems to be a common pattern where the media gets something wrong, scientists in the field aren't able to call it out, and there's a fairly long wait until someone has the visibility and credentials to point out the mistake. Banning discussion from more and more platforms could make it harder to correct real mistakes.

On the other hand, "do your own research" clearly doesn't work out well for a lot of people. I have no idea how to balance the competing factors. Maybe we have to accept some legitimate debate will be stifled by platforms, or maybe this is a problem for scientists themselves to solve.
Static Analysis at GitHub: An experience report
RISC-V: The New Architecture on the Block
You don’t have a monopoly on truth. The “anti-vaxxers” are not a monolithic group, and some people who are skeptics of consensus views on the various questions involved will probably be vindicated as other non-consensus views have been so far, which is normal in any chaotic situation where data is limited.
They do that well :) And you know, maybe if you get on their turf you disappear. So there is that part as well.
Heartbleed barely made a dent in funding.
Antennagate and a big fraudulent startup in the medical (!) industry are quite different scale things.
Here in Germany we also had Blockwarts if we stick to tasteless comparisons.
Depends on what's being audited. For investors, you want to show a room of gear that other companies don't have. For certification of medical equipment, you want to demonstrate that your process works.
This ignores the aspect of personal responsibility. Nobody is forcing these people to refuse the free and widely-available vaccine - they do so by choice and an adult consciousness, and it follows that you bear the consequences for your personal decisions.
What does Docker Desktop even really offer on Linux? k8s, I guess? There are other open-source (Docker Desktop is proprietary ofc) ways to do that.

As a Linux user, far from a dream at all, really.
I am convinced scientific results should not be publicized, publicly promoted or broadly advertised at least a decade after publication. That's about the timescale it takes specialist communities to cross check or falsify results.

Of course, this is exactly the opposite of how science works today. There are poorly written press releases galore, and flashy but tenuous results that seldom hold up to scrutiny. There's a reason a journal like Nature is routinely mocked in scientific circles.
Having also seen cool videos in my YT playlists disappear over time, I've been "caching" the ones more precious to me.
That is a bogus argument. 1) Killing people is already a criminal act; 2) There are some people killing/beating people up with the slightest impetus. They will find that impetus whether Twitter allows people to discuss anything negative about the CCP; 3) Do you really want the speech of everyone to be regulated on the basis of the excuses used by psycho-killers?

Do you think Jodie Foster should have been banned from appearing in movies?

Update: And, just in time, this shows up[1,2]:

> Tech firm LinkedIn has censored the profile of US journalist Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian[3] in China, inviting her to “update” content without specifying what triggered the block.

Ah! She wrote a book about China[4].

Can't allow that! What if some random person becomes too critical of the CCP and assaults a random Asian-American in San Fransisco?[5]

Let the attribution games begin!

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431

[2]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censor...

[3]: https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/

[4]: https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/14432130456065884...

[5]: https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-atta...
I have written GEM bindings to Lisp for the Atari ST, it isn't really tied to C.
Shell Quest Issue 1
The EU is funding lots of new projects struggling to get off the ground though; you'll encounter lots of them on the Fediverse: https://mastodon.xyz/@ngizero
If they are unvaccinated and they die, so what? They made their choice. The doctors ought to be saying "Well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of your own actions" not trying to force people to do something in order to save them from themselves.

Then you always hear "well the real problem is that the unvaccinated are taking up ICU beds from non-covid patients that need them, etc."

Ok, how long have we known about this problem now? Why are ICU beds such a fixed resource? Why can't we make temporary wards for unvaccinated covid patients to alleviate ICU beds?

If this problem happened in the tech world it would be lambasted. "Please stop making requests to X website, it makes the server crash and then the people that really need to access it can't". Yeah DDoS attacks happen and are hard to prevent downtime, but if the server loading problem still persisted over a year and a half later people would be outraged that the company did nothing to try to meet the load. In the tech world when servers can't handle its load we start scaling (either automatically or manually) until the server can meet the load (or otherwise take some sort of mitigating action to alleviate the DoS). Hospitals need to innovate a way to do the same, "please don't get sick with covid because we have no way of scaling to meet load spikes" is such a crappy way of operating.
Google isn't the one who wants to cut their ad revenue and get accused for being Big Brother. Social media censorship has always occured because people demanded it. This time, it's not just an angry Twitter mob either. Even the president are saying that they are not doing enough to combat misinformation.
Unless you can back this up with a threat of "we won't continue maintenance unless you pay up", this strategy is unlikely to make much of an impression. The OSS community has demonstrated to be quite willing to work for free, so why would you suddenly start paying them?

Big organizations only change course when something is already broken and it is hindering the organization. In places where everything is just humming along, nothing changes. (This often applies to careers as well btw)
Then the evening sun could potentially cause the same thing. There's a gap in houses across the street that may allow sun in at the right time of year.
"like 4chan" is the godwin's law of social media moderation
I use it for my newsletter for my fanfiction blog and book reviews. My subscription is free. I may post some articles in the future you have to pay for due to content, but for now, I like it to be entirely free so people can get my fanfic chapters directly sent to their emails and won't miss a chapter
>We should opt for the opposite - a spectrum of platforms that appeal to different interests and are regulated in proportion to the severity of incorrect or bad-faith information in that interest.

I fully agree. Even though the debate around centralization is a separate debate, it's not at all orthogonal. I still feel that federation is the way. Open standards and platforms that anyone with the capital can spin up on their own boxes.
The compass needle is surely spinning. Do your christmas shopping early and make sure you have some extra blankets.
> Using it for actual production code makes about as much sense as writing production stuff in bash, you can do it but you're just making things harder on yourself for no good reason. Even Ruby is a bit better, but these days there's no reason not to use Go or Rust

Good luck doing any deep learning in Go or Rust :)
I've long said, Flickr's solution works pretty well. They have groups, you can form any group you want and set your own group rules. You can set filters and you can opt to view "adult" content or not (take me back to kittens").

It's all about opting-in.

You have certain taste, go find that group or found your own.

You don't like certain groups, don't become a member of such group.

You want to have your own private invite only group, go ahead, create your own invite only group.

Flickr never achieved the prominence of FB or IG, or flash in the pan like Tumblr, but I think they built it from the ground up to provide a decent service for everyone with a light touch. For illegal stuff, yeah, you get kicked out, that's legit. Need to escalate to site admins, that's possible too but only if the group admins are acting in bad faith.
[1] is a better explanation of how this can be exploited.

Basically, a victim finds an air tag, and as a Good Samaritan, opens the "found" link to attempt to reunite the air tag with its owner. The key is, the victim may trust the Apple Airtag to direct them to a secure, private web page, so may be willing to do something like provide their iCloud credentials when prompted.

It's not an attack that would be deployed indiscriminately -- it costs an attacker $30 for a chance that a desired target will find the Airtag, be a Good Samaritan and interact with the "found" page as hoped. But it could make sense against high value targets.

[1] https://medium.com/@bobbyrsec/zero-day-hijacking-icloud-cred...
I don't know how objective science is, because we bring all of our biases to the table when we interpret data. A young earth creationist, an old earth creationist, a fanatical darwin evolutionist, and an ardent panspermia UFOlogist are all going to view the same data very different, even if they have identical educational credentials. The holes in evidence for each don't matter, because they are the persuaded.

If we think about truth bending to subjective reality, I am sure certain that some of the churchmen & scientists opposing Galileo's embrace of Copernican heliocentrism were completely certain geocentrism was the truth because their own astronomical observations were subject to slavish obedience to doctrine. This doctrine in their heads influenced their own observations. Narrative overwhelmed the senses.

It is the mad among us that have the rare ability to completely discount all external input and see a thing for what it truely is. And, that is why we call them crazy.
Oh man. I was just there, so true :) - Albanians are industrious af.
Who is the arbiter of good / bad speech? What is the process through society figures out what speech is good and what speech is bad?
Technologically possible, corporocratically impossible - it would lose the company money.
It almost seems as if you believe you can't be lied to by the people you agree with. In this case, we'll call them "vaxxers" since you seem to believe only "anti-vaxers" are capable of duplicity.
I had a kidney stent in for a few days while I healed from an operation. Let me tell you, it’s a huge quality of life downer (obviously the medical operation outweighed the life style concern). You definitely don’t want medical equipment dangling on the outside of your body if you can help it.
Daniel can fight for whatever storage mechanism he wants, it's not defined how the DID should be stored in the specification so people are free to store them however they want.

Then some group comes along and uses sustainability as signal against DIDs, when DID has nothing to do with Bitcoin or blockchain? Feels like the motivation for this "response" comes from somewhere else than "please think of the planet".
> People are going to cheer that "wackos" will no longer have a platform. It's not the wackos we should be worrying about. It's the stifling of legitimate public debate, the stifling of legitimate voices who find themselves in the minority.

My opinion is that we didn't need YouTube/Facebook to conduct public policy debate before, and we don't need it now. It has brought nothing to the table except the, as you put it, "wackos". I really challenge the idea that there is value to them at all in the public debate.

Take this example you gave (by the way I agree that the doctor in question was doing good work). This doctor, 20 years ago, had direct influence in his own practice, some influence in his hospital, and maybe some influence in the health agency, although that is mostly reserved to the politically connected "big doctors" who sit at the top.

What is his influence to enact public policy change today? The exact same as it was then. He's no closer to personally convince his health agency or Hospital administration than he was 20 years ago. The difference is that now he has direct influence over millions of people, outside of any nuanced structure or supervision.

We may argue this isn't great, or democratic, that is true. But it is also true that YouTube videos and Facebook commenters have contributed nothing of value to public health debate. No single life was saved because of YouTube, except for videos where people were urged to see a "real doctor" and not follow Internet advice.

---

As a more general note, I always find the idea that YouTube/Facebook are free speech enablers disturbing. They are companies, they have nothing to do with rights. We have to perform a simple test: If YouTube went bankrupt tomorrow and had to close doors, would someone's right to Free Speech be diminished? They would suddenly not be able to reach as many people, but they'd still hold the exact same rights.
How can you make a responsible informed choice when censorship and access to information is restricted?

Trust the experts then? Why would you if they don't let you freely talk about it?
It is a matter of consumer protection. We allow a farmer to set up a farm stand and sell tomatoes by the side of the road without much regulation, because consumers in general can determine if the product is good.

We don't allow that farmer to sell auto insurance by the side of the road without regulation. This is because a consumer cannot possibly look at a few documents from the farmer and know the quality and reliability of that auto insurance policy that the farmer is selling.

Things are more complicated with regulating free speech because people approach the speech from very different angles. Maybe I watch a scummy Televangelist because I want to make a new farting preacher video. Maybe an elderly person watches the same video and gives away the money she had for food for the week. How do you balance the religious and free speech rights of the preacher, my right to make fun of him, and the consumer protection of the elderly person?
The original video was at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKbU8B-QVZk

The Wayback Machine archives YouTube videos. I don't know how it archives or determines which videos to archive, but it has a surprising number of popular videos (but also ones with only a few thousand views and not some of those with billions, possibly because they're so high-profile due to copyright?). It also archives the video only once (creators may alter videos slightly, IIRC) and not always with the highest-quality format (possibly due an underlying problem with youtube-dl's `best` option).

YouTube is special-cased with processing to replace the player on the archived video page with the archived video (which is indexed with a mangled googlevideo.com URL, the same type as retrieved by youtube-dl), but this doesn't always work. Fortunately, archived videos can also be accessed directly by video ID through the (very undocumented) WB Machine-specific 'fake' URL:

http://wayback-fakeurl.archive.org/yt/<ID>

The video in question is at:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wayback-fakeurl.archive...

Edit: A very early reupload (2007-10-28, compared to the original video's 2007-07-13) is still up at _X6VoFBCE9k, but is of degraded quality and has an additional watermark.
In addition to playing into anti-vaxxers’ belief that they are being silenced for nefarious purposes, reducing their arguments’ visibility also reduces the likelihood someone will publish a well-reasoned counterargument.

Skeptic videos might be disseminated on sites frequented solely by those willing to believe them, and they will be less exposed to dissenting opinions.
The disappearance of the “absent-minded, eccentric professor” from our culture
How many people need to die before it's considered a "deadly disease"? As a person in a high risk group, it angers me to hear folks cast my life as disposable and my death as insignificant.

I've given up reddit after arguing with all these fools. A simple risk analysis will tell you it was the right thing to do. If you're wrong about the vaccine, you took a shot you may not have needed, if you're wrong about COVID, you're betting your life on it (and other people's as well).
I'm starting to believe in the conspiracy theory that conspiracy theories are created by a conspiracy to make rational talking points easier to attack and silence. Rational dissidents can be easily silenced if they are connected to these propaganda movements.

When there's a flood of misinformation, then it's hard for anyone to get factual information out. It's a way to censor information by flooding it with adjacent misinformation to dilute and discredit the message.
Best Practices for Letting Go of a Remote Team Member
Today's challenge for a free domain name
Nobody's uploading their SSN or CC numbers on TikTok, so who cares?

People didn't care after the Equifax hack, and that had far more personal information.
YouTube and Google just joined the most brutal regimes on Earth in suppressing different opinions than what is government given propaganda. I am from former communist Czechoslovakia, never believed that again in my life I will have to challenge news and meet with censorship on such a big scale.
> Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.

Whenever they started doing that specifically through false-front Facebook groups, Russia has been doing that to the West nonstop, through most media that it could conceivably be done, since it became an independent country, taking over from the USSR which had been doing it for generations previously.
There is conflicting research in this area. It's too early to declare any definitive conclusions yet.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
Strict static types reduce a giant class of errors (including most of the footguns I'm always triggering in my dayjob with Python). Purity reduces another giant class: It makes it easy (indeed kind of forces you) to restrict your IO to a thin, top-level error, hence keeping the vast majority of the code purely functional and thus easy to test.

Exactly how Haddock produces such wonderful automatic documentation, I don't know, but good God it does. The strict static types clearly help -- you can see exactly what every function inputs and outputs, what every data type needs, etc. And then you can jump to the definitions of any of those things, and if need be (almost never), the source code that defines them.
Big Pharma worshipping elitist shills see that they're losing the argument, so instead of thinking harder or changing their minds, they ban their opponents. These people are the worst.
You probably do.

Let's say you watch new and unique youtube videos for an hour a day, or 365 hours a year. (This is a lot more than I watch, btw)

Let's say we have 5Mbps videos, or half a megabyte per second.

365 * 60 * 60 * 0.5 = 657G/year

A 1TB disk is about $50, for about $25/year to store it at home.

If you upload your videos to S3 Glacier it'll run around $8/year (per year, so after a few years this is more expensive than buying drives).

For comparison, YT premium is $144/year.

I only watch about 10 minutes of unique youtube videos a day on average, so I'm looking at around $1/year cost if I want to archive every single youtube video I've ever seen. It's pretty affordable.
Disinformation is doing more harm to society than encrypted terrorist emails ever could. The "Disinformation vs. free speech" will be a defining balance of the next decade, even more fraught than "privacy vs. security" in cyberspace.

I'm not censoring someone because they want low taxes, high taxes, disbanding the department of education, or giving every poor person a new car.

There is a line to be drawn, somewhere, one when speech crosses from the expression of political thought and free thinking, and into the willful (or the amplification of willful), factually incorrect statements generated by sophisticated trolls and adversary nation-states.

My personal take: The Internet is a vital tool for free expression, and as such, a "floor" of free expression should be permitted. Ensure that DNS and ISP connectivity cannot be removed from someone based on the legal expression of thought. Those are infrastructure.

Youtube, Facebook, and other amplification platforms? In the short term, I don't see how we force them to host actively harmful content without recategorizing their role in society.

edit to respond to iosono88 (since HN is throttling my ability to rebut): I'll keep my response simple: I also don't like payment processors being used as control mechanisms for legal activities.
If you are a stay at home mom who makes a living doing book reviews it is a ritual
So if you turn your house into an apartment, you should come out ahead, but this only works if enough population growth (including immigration). Still a pretty bad investment.

There are increasing returns to density, but they don't show up quick enough to defeat NIMBYism on the margins. The margins, of course, are where NIMBYism thrives. No one likes moving!