skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I recommend reading this article for a quick overview of the current political landscape: https://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-c...

The fact is that states and corporations collude and compete with each other for political control internationally, and corporate power outranks the vast majority of state powers. Weirdly though, I can't find Alphabet Inc. in the power rankings.
The absurd things that you have heard Christians say are not supported by their leadership. In contrast, there are barbaric actions done by the so-called "heroes" that are defended and even praised by many self-professed socialists.

Don't you see a difference at all?
The most dangerous man in the world
Neural Networks for Chess
Vim can, but why in the world would I have vim do that itself when that means I have to learn/use both vims windowing system and my window managers windowing system? What advantage does it give me...
Science works upon facts, politics works upon emotional ethos of those facts.
This risks advertisers who do not want their brands associated with this content leaving the platform entirely. YouTube is not only trying to sell ads, they’re trying to remain “respectable” so the advertising whales keep spending.
That's an interesting topic that sometimes gets explored in sci-fi. If an AI is created that is able to learn all knowledge and form it into a single consistent model of reality but it ends up making conclusions we don't want to hear, what are the consequences for humanity and living things in general?
>So we have a situation where keeping the content is reinforcing the beliefs and where blocking the content is also reinforcing the beliefs, because "legitimate" content telling "the truth" is blocked "without reason".

I'd say that blocking the content doesn't always reinforce their beliefs. For a lot of people, reading something that is then blocked at a later date reinforces the belief that the information they consumed is not only true, but so true that it has to be censored by some authority, because it would threaten said authority's legitimacy.

As an example, imagine you think that the police are too violent, and you stumble upon police bodycam footage of a cop getting unnecessarily violent at a traffic stop. You bookmark the video, and then later when you try to tell people about it, the video has been taken down the police, for whatever reason. Wouldn't that reinforce your belief that police are too violent?

I know this isn't a perfect example, because a video of someone doing something is much different than an article making claims based on little to no evidence. But the reason some people's beliefs are reinforced by censorship is because they can't help but wonder if the people doing the censoring are trying to hide something.
This sounds like the rationale government leaders often employ to institute a dictatorship: "temporarily remove freedoms and grant the president emergency executive powers".

But somehow "temporarily" becomes "permanently" because no one in power wants to voluntarily give up that power.
> The anxiety is a negative feedback loop..

good way to put it.

I have tried CBT and I am going to get the 2 books that you mentioned.

> For example, when you notice yourself typing "reddit.com" or something into your browser, force yourself to stop, close the browser, and breath for 5 seconds. You can still revisit the site afterwards, but the awareness of what you're doing can often lead to intentional changes without berating yourself.

That's an interesting point.

Thank you for your comment.
Ask HN: How do you migrate off of Cognito?
I was looking at writing a guide to migrate to another identity provider from AWS Cognito and was surprised to learn that there is no bulk export functionality containing passwords.

I found this doc, which might be helpful for a user by user migration: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cognito/latest/developerguide/user-pool-lambda-migrate-user.html You could run this and create users in the new IdP.

I found this: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/solutions/latest/cognito-user-profiles-export-reference-architecture/cognito-user-profiles-export-reference-architecture.pdf which is good for profile data, but explicitly excludes passwords. I suppose you could bulk migrate everyone using this approach and then require everyone to reset their password?

How do people migrate their user data off of AWS Cognito?

Full disclosure, I work for a Cognito competitor (link in my profile) and the doc I'm working on will be published on their site.
Truth it is. Whatever their motto of the day, companies have no morals or principles, they are driven purely by their business goals and would change their policies in a blink of an eye when they feel it would help their business.
Usually packages don't modify code in core Emacs or in other packages. Often, they use package-supplied "hooks" to add behavior to other packages. Failing that, there's the possibility of 'advising' functions to add/change behavior at certain points without actually monkeypatching. I've never seen a distributed package actually monkeypatch anything, though it is something you could do in your personal config.
It is called common-law in some places
Except nowadays, an expert being wrong once means everyone who disagreed with them is banned forever.
What’s the FOV?
Don't be naive. It's not the wackos who won't have a platform. It's the people who know vaccines aren't dangerous, but realize they can snag an audience by claiming otherwise, so they prey on those people. These charlatans are the people who won't have a platform and, I say good riddance.
The author is speaking about the general concept of threading, outside of Python (without using C extensions to help out as discussed in the article). In general, if you don't have a GIL, and you have 2 or more cores then if you run additional threads you will see a speedup for CPU-intensive code. The actual speedup will vary. A sibling comment mentions embarrassingly parallel problems, those are things like ray tracing, where each computation is independent of all the others. In those cases, you get near linear speedup with each additional core and thread. If there is more coordination between the threads (mutexes and semaphores, for instance, controlling access to a shared datum or resource) then you will get a less-than-linear speedup. And if there is too much contention for a common resource, you won't get any speedup and will see some slowdown due to the overhead introduced by threads.
It tends to be easier to give advice based on concrete elements than abstractly.

Other than that, I compiled a list of tips a while back that should help you get a better intuition of what you need beyond the mechanics (sure, you need a headline, but what makes it good?):

http://yourlandingpagesucks.com/startup-landing-page-teardow...

If I tried to boil it down to the basics, it's mostly about trying to put yourself in the shoes of a potential customer with very little time to waste:

* What's in it for me? => Value proposition / claims

* Prove it => Proof
With an actual private, for-profit business, consumers have the power of taking their money and spending elsewhere.

In this case, there is a dominant communication medium that is not subject to the discipline which the rest of us can impose on it by spending our money elsewhere because the "business" does not rely on our spending. So, bringing up the massive potential harms that can be visited on a society where the dominant communication channels all the do the bidding of political power centers is the only thing we can do. Maybe sufficient numbers of people will be convinced by this.

It seems less and less likely. That is sad.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if there are cookies for *.apple.com that you can read this way…
This is interesting. Which industry are you in?

I think I never saw a CV without a name, and rarely one without a photo. This is in high tech.
That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely made a peep about the root cause until the horses had already left the barn. None of these "concerned" stakeholders gave a shit about the socially corrosive nature of social media and they still don't beyond their own interests.
Thanks for providing this context. I didn't know s12y stood for sustainability, and I also only now realized that the number in e.g. i18n is the number of letter omitted (and not leet speak or some "sk8er"-like abbreviation).
MD means Doctor of Medicine, i.e., they completed medical school. Dr. Fauci is a Doctor of Medicine in that he completed medical school and received his MD.

After medical school, doctors will enter a residency program for a specialty, but they are still MDs (DOs are equivalent). Their post-graduate training (residency and fellowship) varies but they are still MDs. MDs who specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology are still MDs. MDs who specialize in family medicine are still MDs.

You are falsely inferring MD means GP (general practitioner) which it may or may not. And you are further falsely inferring that a GP cannot have expertise in virology and immunology, which they likely don't, but they may. If you were to conclude a GP does not have CREDENTIALS to speak authoritatively about virology and immunology, I'd accept that assertion.
> But more than anything I like seeing this because I think it is a great demonstration that we are not nearly as reasonable or rational as we like to think we are, and sometimes you get the best results by anti-flock/antipattern thinking, especially in new fields.

I don't think that the romanticism of their irrationality and contrarian bias is warranted. From my experience, a lot of researchers have that bias but they don't develop nobelitis, presumably because their crazier ideas are constantly challenged by their peers. Nobel laureates appear to lose that feedback, and some of them drift away into Lala-land. Given their disproportionate influence on policy, this could potentially be quite dangerous.
Vaccines work by prompting a targeted (partial) immune response. They give your body advanced designs for part of the virus so it can be proactive - the con is a vaccine can not provide all of the information.

Contracting a virus provides your body with the full genetic footprint of the virus. Assuming you survive, you should have better antibodies than what a vaccine can provide.
There are problems both on the producing side and the consuming side. Any scientist knows that research is often driven by politics, money or ego.

The bigger problems are probably on the consumer side, though, and not only in under-educated social groups. Here's an interesting post I stumbled across recently: "People who trust science are less likely to fall for misinformation -- unless it sounds sciency" (https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/08/10/people-who-trust-scienc...)

This confirms my sense that we easily glom on to things that "sound right", and if you're a scientist or engineer "sciency" statements sound right to us. Do we really have the time to dive in deep enough to figure out whether it's pseudoscience?
Imagine the government decided that you go to prison for speaking against vaccines. That would be a mistake. This is the same kind of mistake, but on a smaller scale.
Why? wouldn't it just be a matter of activating a low-power mode and turning
off the screen? It's been said a long time that this is done by certain
malwares.
There's an entire literature on this: clinical versus statistical [actuarial] prediction.

It generally finds that statistical/algorithmic methods have the edge, although there's some evidence that experts can perform as well in certain limited situations.

There's lots of explanations for the phenomenon that have been discussed.

Still interesting to see in this context.

Unless I'm misreading something, it would have been interesting to do this with a group of people (e.g., get predictions from 5 people and then average them or something--but would that then be nonhuman?)
I did a free "birthright" style trip to Israel when I was younger. One of the events during the trip was a presentation from some business executive that was also a hasidic jew that founded and ran a holding company that actually appeared to be a pretty seriously large business. I'll always remember though when he was going through all the businesses they owned that one was some media company that owned major networks and production companies for televangelism. I always thoughts that was hilarious.
That's not what endowments are for, especially since they are abusing the federal student loan funding by raising tuition, which is clearly not going toward education. While also trapping people in way more student debt than they would have otherwise if the student loan system wasn't abused.
https://archive.is/WLPk3
> Now the USA make holocaust denial illegal. Would that make you reconsider if the holocaust really happened?

Not me, but I could easily see it making other people suspicious. It directly plays into the anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish control of communications. Pass such a law and the first thing they would do is point to its passage as proof of whatever conspiracy theory they're espousing.

The correct response to bad speech is not censorship, it's more speech: refute those arguing for bad policy, counterprotest those espousing hate. Imprisoning Hitler and his cronies didn't work in Germany, and far right groups like AfD still gain traction in the country.
They have always removed those that they review, presumably triggered by sufficient reports by users - do you find that unexpected? Unless you're implying that if you can't moderate some threshold percentage of instances of a violation that you should moderate 0% of them, which seems unrealistic, but I've seen people make that argument.
Don't forget, the term "anti-vaxers" has become a catch-all term for shutting down the slightest criticism about the virus, whether fact or opinion. I have seen this term slung at people simply questioning vaccine mandates and passports in casual conversations both online and offline. Very few people are anti-vax but they powers that be would like most people to think there are only 2 sides. We live in dangerous times.
It seems the only way to get Apple cooperate is to demonstrate how this can hurt them and their product. Article headlines need to be something like “Attention: Apple’s Airtags are not safe to scan”. Written for consumer consumption then delivered as a PSA to different news media. News sites and channels love to be the first with this stuff too
Science is conducted by people, all of whom have preferences. Until the day arrives that science is explored only by preferenceless beings, science and politics will continue to have a significant overlap, much of it at the invitation of scientists.
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/managing-harmful-vaccin...

and

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11161123

one example of specifically "not allowed on YouTube" is:

> Claims that vaccines contain substances that are not on the vaccine ingredient list, such as biological matter from fetuses (e.g. fetal tissue, fetal cell lines) or animal byproducts

Which i wonder if it means talking about contaminants is now banned? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/07/third-person-d...
To explain in a few more words:

1. 1984 is not a religious prophecy. That something has happened which bears some aesthetic similarity to a part of the book is not significant or interesting by itself. If you wish to assert that Google has the power to shape the truth then you will first have to explain why,

2. The video still exists, in a thousand forms, both on YouTube and elsewhere on the internet where YT has no power. If YT wished to scrub it from the site they could do so, but they didn't.
> You can't assume the amount of people on the planet as some sort of a proxy for well being, by that logic life was 2x worse in the 1960s

I know this isn't quite what you were getting at, but child mortality rate is commonly a proxy for well being, is a major factor in the global population increase, and was >4.5x higher in 1960: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-child-mortality-ti...

So, in some sense of it, population size is a proxy for well being (at least for now).
Sometimes true, but sometimes not, it depends on how the hardware is designed to integrate with software. The Leap Motion failed miserably (my opinion) at this by expecting software to figure out where it fit as a human interface device rather than having a strong opinion based on software/reference drivers.
> People who spend a lifetime learning about something will, on average, make better decisions about that thing then you or I

...at the expense of things they are not experts in. Ask an expert in virology how to prevent spread of the virus and they will give you a good answer. But that doesn't mean turning their advice into a mandated policy will work out well. Game theory comes into play there and an expert in virology is likely not an expert in game theory, politics, economics, or anything else involving policies affecting 350M+ people.
We Can Work It Out: How to Build Entrepreneurial Teams for Enhanced Success
Do you have the expertise to evaluate his expertise? Did the person who granted you proof of this expertise also have sufficient expertise to do so? What about the person above that? What is the root of expertise? Plato with his allegory of the cave, casually dismissing claims that come from the wrong mouths in his lofty opinion?

In my mind it would be simpler to evaluate claims as they are rather than bringing the speakers life story into it.
The Shop Safe Act Is a Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
This is simply wrong. Now, we are slowly moving towards to communist regimes.
>Would that make you reconsider if the holocaust really happened?

It would change my bayesian priors. Not enough to change my opinion entirely, but it would move me more towards the middle.

Imagine flat-earthers were suddenly banned from all public fora. Currently, I'm able to see the arguments they make, and they're decisively unconvincing. If I knew a lot of people believed something that strange but didn't know why, it would absolutely be more convincing than now, when I hear the arguments. I think the same is true of any seriously badly-reasoned belief.
It is a very public example of the result of limited moderation.

Free speech advocates advocating for absolutism in free speech need a counterargument if they're going to go down that road.

In my experience, aggressive moderation, whether by the community or by admins, is the only way to keep a public community from turning into a cesspool, so if you're arguing for no moderation you better have a solution for what that actually entails.
I'd assume there aren't that many Trump/Brexit voters in St Petersburg's churches.
A private company shouldn't get to pick and choose what opinions are valid. YouTube is not an arbiter of truth, and there is no universal law that says YouTube's moderators will always be correct. As a massive corporation, when they decide to take the path of banning critics of Google, pro-Palestinian activists, feminists and so on, the other companies will follow suit. They don't have to justify it, because almost no-one will care.

If that makes you angry, go convince people that vaccines are safe and effective. You use the internet to out-argue anti-vaxxers, which should be easy because they're so wrong and ideological.

And if you think that YouTube is large enough and a big enough monopoly that it should be treated as a public service and subject to the rules that apply to public services, then either nationalize it so that it is, or break it up so that there's competition in the market.
The main problem is that you think you need open discussion and public debates on this topic. You don't. That is not a movie or a painting, it's science. You need research, proof, scrutiny. This is a job and it's done by professionals.

Moderate voices, voices of reason, voices you like, voices you don't like, opinions, ... are irrelevant, useless, not needed, and just add noise. This noise, in all its forms and shapes is detrimental to the only thing that really matters and has value - what the actual researchers and scientists are communicating back to the public.

Opinions, wish-beliefs, convictions are something Reality doesn't concern itself with.

Think of it that way - when the plane is falling due to some technical problem, will you open facebook to scout for opinions and rally support, or will you just sit you bottom down and do as you're told by the cabin crew? What about during some surgical procedure - are you going to pop open a youtube stream so that your followers can judge and guide the surgeon?

Anyway, too late, too little. Damage has been done. And it's not really youtube or the social network's faults. Even without them, stupidity would find another way to make itself visible.
Maybe scientists should stick to their labs? You can invent a cure for cancer, but that doesn't automatically make you a good politician or leader.
You can just look up their terms of service which I'm fairly sure leave a carve out for news items ...

But you are making an assumption that the average worker (probably from India) making $1 an hour, can tell the difference between newsworthy war crimes, and a snuff film.

I don't think anyone is going to get that right 100% of the time. So no, I don't really see it as a problem.
... but that's because of these very GIL limitations, is it not?
> The absurd things that you have heard Christians say are not supported by their leadership.

The absurd things that I have heard Christians say (as a Christian myself) have been disproportionately directly from leaders in the Christian community (particularly, but not exclusively, the elites of the American Christian Right, some of whom are also significant figures in one of the remaining heirarchical churches in America.)

That includes the examples specifically cited by the poster upthread.

(There are, of course, other Christian leaders that disagree.)
I believe this is highly regional. Drug tests are extremely common in the South and Midwest, when applying for an in-person position at least.

I’ve not had to get one since joining “the tech industry”, but my family members who are more traditionally employed all have them every time they switch jobs and are at least theoretically subject to random testing - including those working at the C-level of very large companies.
Relevant Magazine is an Antifa/BLM advocate front. The previous editor was ousted by a mob of woke activist employees because he wasn't "committed" enough to their vision/ideology and efforts to use the magazine as a platform of radical leftist racism/anti-racism.

Relevant is now literally encouraging their readers to contribute to Antifa/BLM bail funds: https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/resources-to-help-y...
> the only reason to make something like that illegal IS because you're hiding something

That is the most illogical statement I've read all month.
Agreed, I'm happy to see people working on this, but with VR there are so many limiting factors/dealbreakers that I don't envy anyone playing in this space without massive resources to tackle them all.

For me, the MVP for working in VR is replacing my fairly standard monitor setup (3x24-27", 12-14px text size, 60hz). I don't really care about virtual meetings or whiteboards or environments, I just want to make the transition to having what would be unreasonable/impossible in hardware (dozens of resizable windows I can easily rearrange and fill my whole FoV with. Nail that and I will gladly drop a couple of grand on it.
Some previous commentary on the Shop Safe Act:

https://medium.com/@corporatebullies/why-the-shop-safe-act-i...
Exactly. It is quite evident at this point that "Russia Russia Russia" was a bought and paid for disinformation campaign
In the field of rape as well.

https://www.mypanhandle.com/health/panel-finds-80-alleged-ab...