skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am for liberty. I don't like when governments censor their citizens and I don't like when corporations censor their users or customers. There is no contradiction. The fact that google and co can censor others is just thanks to the government being liberal and allowing action that goes against this value. This is similar to the paradox of tolerance except for liberty: "do we allow free expression for those who use it to restrict others?". And I say we do, but I don't pretend to be happy when they do.
> denying the link between pesticide use and bee/insect declines

Has this been proven?
Isn't the self-driving just a feature on top of the car? They're faking one feature that a customer might opt into -- and none that I know have.

Tesla has delivered a performant EV that is nice to drive in and is comparable to other luxury vehicles. It's not exactly faking for quite some time.
AFAIK, the most likely projection at this point is that Uber will not have made a single dollar from the day it was created until the day it shuts down, and might well face similar scrutiny as Theranos someday (although, not being health related, consequences might not be as severe).
YouTube blocks all anti-vaccine content, bans prominent activists
In the lab leak case it appears that all the "experts" everywhere were wrong (or afraid to speak up, which is functionally equivalent).

One problem here is the conflation of government officials and academia with expertise. It's quite plainly possible to spend your life in academia yet end up with no actual expertise in the topic you're studying, as evidenced by the large number of papers out there presenting unvalidated predictions which end up being wildly false, over and over again. Fundamentally, in academia and government being wrong doesn't cause you to lose your job. Your job depends instead on your reputation and alliances. A large amount of groupthink and incorrect beliefs is a natural outcome.
I like the free market. If a store who also likes the free market decided to raise their price significantly because they claim to be better than everyone else then I will still think that is their right in the free market. However, since I value the free market so much I won't buy from them. Similarly, if YouTube wants to exercise their right of freedom of expression to censor content then I, as someone who values freedom of expression will use them less. Unfortunately, while in the first example many people would behave like me and cause the store to lower their price, not that many people value freedom of expression for YouTube to care about loosing those people.
Have you considered paying for Inkscape instead ;-)
Had you not, you should be equally worried that effectively guaranteeing them COVID, as this isn't going away, puts into their body a neurologically impacting virus, with growing evidence of medium term impacts, whilst in other medical fields a growing body of literature shows viruses can have severe life and wellness impacts decades later (whether that means Chicken Pox with Shingles, or Herpes/Cold sores and Alzheimer's).
Not since I was a kid.
I don't know. Ostensibly it looks like pathos is easy right now. Politics seems super intense right now, but it also seems super fake. Mostly I think shows of pathos are fake right now. Getting people to actually do things and act seems like the hardest thing right now. Posting on social media doesn't count.
As someone in this privileged position, the truth of what you've said, although a tough pill to swallow, has dawned on me many times.

We can't blind ourselves to the truth simply because it is convenient. What's true is true, and we only tarnish our souls by not acknowledging and acting on the truth.
As copyrighted material, it should be required that a copy be stored with library of Congress.

It used to be that LoC submission was part of the deal with copyright, but somehow we forgot that and important history has already been lost.
I have not tried it out extensively but it has the same two problems that youtube competitors have. Library is smaller and it's not the same speed/quality. YouTube has a hold over our internet culture at this point and I think only a anti monopoly lawsuit can fix this.
> Science absolutely exists as a thing on its own, “pure” if you will.

Interesting. I thought it did a great job of illustrating that while the quoted is true, the quoted represents an "ideal" (or pejoratively put a "fantasy"), as the reality of doing any real amount of such ideal science coordinates with the real world, the context of doing so, means it never ends up anywhere near pure and unsullied. It's like the fact that adding an even number and an odd number will always produce an odd number.
Product Management Analytics: What You Need from Startup to Enterprise
"I need filters. I need vetters. I need vouching. I need those who are informed on a topic to do all the legwork and present the results."

How can you rely on this approach when some of them or some of their sources are censored?
I was on the fence about this comment. I was contemplating whether or not it was authentic. Then I got to the part about the dog, and I decided, "This guys alright by me."
This one comes to mind:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/965/960/38a...

I've seen nobody criticize the method in the abstract. I agree with the grandparent poster that that's troubling, if you've seen it.

What I've seen from the right is a skepticism of the institutions. I'll admit I share this sentiment to an extent, though my perspective is as a mostly ignorant outsider, trying to figure out who and what to trust.

I have seen criticisms of the peer review system, though it came from Eric Weinstein, not a right winger. And if I had to guess, he is concerned about climate change. I don't understand the peer review system well, but it makes sense to me that that if badly designed it could go horribly wrong.
Devil;s advocacy: then why so much ad spend to push pro-vaxx media? Also vaccinated, not remorseful at all. Wouldn't the responsible messaging be a huge ad wave of "talk to your doctor?"

My opinion: this isn't actually a feasible solution. There are not enough doctors for all millions of Americans, let alone all billions of humans, to consult with their doctor. It's also largely unnecessary. I did not consult my doctor. I looked at the situation, assessed my values, did my own cost-benefit analysis, and mediated all of this with a healthy amount of dialogue between my confidantes. As most people do.

I think this almost necessarily has to be litigated largely through public engagement. You know your situation, your risks, and you know if a serious consultation is prudential for you.

Even still, if the position is "don't make decisions based on biased media," why is the pro-vaxx media more valuable than anti-vaxx or vaxx-hesitant? I believe it resolves entirely to your individual values.

The argument should be: why is it profitable to the individual to value one over the other? I can only make this argument from my previously-established values, and I'm already pro-vaxx.
Adventures in Looping
You also have to not expect to change their view. You can hope to do so, but to expect to do so will just lead to frustration, and you may end up being the one turning the conversation south.
> damaging democracy

IMO, it means something like undermining the trust in elected government and law makers.

There's a lot of policy making for which there's no solid evidence, because –crudely said– social sciences are far too sloppy. However, I don't think much policy is based on it. But in the public on-line debate (whether that's run by trolls or not), many appeal to science in their arguments. Perhaps that has some impact?

The article itself has the same vibe as online debates. The first example of biased science is medical experiments using men, and some totally unnecessary anthropomorphization of the reproductive process, which sounds more like virtue signalling than pertaining to the topic. Whorff-Sapir like arguments complete the picture.

Other arguments in the article point out that scientists can have a rather limited vision, resulting in sub-optimal solutions. But as I said above, I don't think much policy making is largely based on science, and the examples given point as much in the direction of tunnel vision by policy makers as the scientists they consult.

> Is there anything that doesn't

Where trust is absent, everything appears hostile. That would make a good Latin fake quote...
No church has a monopoly on the public square that is being exploited by one political party or corporate interest.
Greenwald's increasingly taken to saying plain stupid stuff without substantiation, and doubling down on it. It's one thing to be poking in areas with little available evidence and doing the best that can be done, another simply to make stuff up and play for drama and views.
I find this article to be problematic:

1. It claims 20% of images in articles are digitally altered, but immediately that this figure is essentially irrelevant - they count things like increasing contrast for better print visibility. There is no information in the article about regarding the fraction of papers in which photos were altered illegitimately.

2. The article seems to offer conflicting "levels" of alteration. First, level 1 is said to be the harmless alterations, but then it is described as splicing images from different experiments.

3. The article claims that there is a "the growing problem of image manipulation in scientific papers". Is there? We've already observed no information is provided about the breadth of the problem at the moment (point (1.)); and - there is no hint of indication of this having somehow gotten worse recently.
Huh, I haven't had any problems using tractorsupply@mydomain.com

I've had a few people ask "That's your email?" and just briefly explained that I own the domain and get all email sent to it.
Most people who are "COVID vaccine hesitant", or whatever term we want to use, aren't opposed to the concept of vaccination in general. Many of them have even gotten flu shots many times in the past, which as an aside when analyzed rigorously are barely better than placebo:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influ...

> Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.

So 71 shots to avoid one case, or if we want to be charitable we should use the 29 shots per one ILI since really ILI is what we care about. And no actual effect on hosp. or working days lost (both of which is what we should really actually care about)

--

Anyway I got off track with the flu vaccine stuff, but anyway surely you're aware that far more people are "hesitant" about the COVID vaccine specifically than any of the other vaccines? So to cast it as a case of "anti-vaccine advocacy" is just wrong. That's not what's going on here and as long as you refuse to try to understand these people you will continue failing to impact their behavior.
A better way to visualize stacked branches in Git
That's like saying I'm "vaccine hell no!" because I don't have a personal need for a polio vaccine lol. Across the entire spectrum you're at less risk from the vaccine than you are from the disease.

> and I reject the societal benefit argument given the population dynamics of what happens when you vaccinate against just the spike

That's so weird, all the data seems to indicate that in areas with high vaccination rates nobody gets sick and dies.

It feels like you've manufactured a windmill for yourself.
In reality the CSG will be unable to fire 930 missiles at a single salvo because of time and targeting constraints, as the incoming missiles will be detected simulataneously.

Also, you don't need to sink the carrier. Just prevent it from launching aircraft. Once that's done it's defenceless.
Who has the objective falsifications? Is it actually a preference of risk reduction and complexity? Would be interested to hear your example.
Just when you thought that an hyper sensitive microphone that can hear everything in your house wasn't enough.
Show HN: Job board for startups that have and encourage diversity on their team
I made a job board that lists jobs from companies that currently have and encourage diversity.

Basically, I was looking for a new job at a startup, and I wanted one that had a lot of diversity in the team, but I couldn't find an easy way to tell if they had diversity.

Here's the link: https://joindiversestartups.com/
Ironic indeed. How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites. It's less than 2%, not 1/3, that don't develop antibodies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24622-7#Sec2

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
In my mind, a "landing page" is an advertisement. A "home page" is a useful (to readers) page that is the place from which you access the rest of the site.
Who is claiming its impossible is what matters as well as when.
If somebody has given something serious thought then their claim could be valid but unless they're providing any evidence it's probably a worthless claim. The evidence is also time constrained as the US going to the moon right now is pretty ludicrous but in a few years maybe somebody will have made a new lander.

Also I don't think you picked good examples.

Uber wasn't the first taxi app so it was definitely possible (IIRC both mapquest & google maps had a taxi tie-in at one point).
Amazon used to charge for shipping so the cost of pack & ship is irrelevant (they weren't doing the current VC model of giving out dollars for 50 cents). See https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det... .

Personal computers were ludicrous at a time when a computer took up more than a whole room. Just like flying cars are ludicrous but technology changes and thats why due diligence matters, is this company developing any technology or are they lieing.
I somewhat miss being on smaller teams. I realized recently that my code has been surrounded by backend services for so long that I should probably take SQL off of my list of skills. Even now when I'm 'on the backend' I'm not talking directly to any relational database, just REST calls or KV gets.

The area I really want to chew on is partial indexes, now that it's no longer a niche feature. I'd like to have a more informed opinion of how far you can scale a system without resorting to sharding, just by use of more efficient indexes. Especially on read-dominated problem domains.
The more wrong they are the more they n down. One of these days that strategy may pay off. Better than admitting you're incompetent egotistical dumbasses who have been acting like nazis.
Scientists' and doctors' views on questions of "ought" can also be influenced by their background in weird says. A dermatologist might insist that people always wear long sleeve shirts and pants outside. Even if moderate sun exposure causes people to statistically live a bit longer on net they see lots of people who die of skin cancer and no more people dying of heart attacks than anyone else so the former are a lot more salient for them.

As the famous saying goes, "nothing is as important as you think it is when you're thinking about it".

Every scientific discipline inculcates values that may be different from those held by the general public ranging from how important it is to give credit to the originators of ideas to the relative importance of difference species to whether naturalness is valuable or not. This isn't bad, its probably necessary. But it's something that has to be accounted for.
You mean the tell me the slippery slope already started? Before I was born? This is the America I grew up in?
ok that makes sense. I actually just did this one eyed, and you are absolutely correct everything is in focus. So it must be just stereoscopy that looks that made me feel I'm focusing differently.

That said, it isn't any more or less strenuous on my eyes than IRL except when the text is too small. Font smoothing still isn't great, but if the screen is big enough you dont notice it.
> When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?

I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt?

> To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations?

To me? No. I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking. I'm fully vaccinated btw.

Regardless, you're sort of missing the point here. Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech. And, to be clear, it's not just "misinformation" that's being banned. There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT.

> The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith.

"They" are? Who is "they?" Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this? We still haven't sorted out where the virus originated and simply showing it is likely zootonic in origin isn't enough. Wuhan was doing active research on zootonic coronaviruses.
They seem pretty open about their beliefs, so I'm not sure why you call them a "front."
Seems like you're describing event sourcing. I'm building an offline-first app and doing pretty much what you're describing.

> I always end up duplicating almost all of the backend logic into the clients as well

Yep, this is a pain I feel acutely. I'm using dotnet (C#/F#) because it allows me to ship & run DLLs on the browser with Blazor, leading to significantly less duplicate code. F# can transpile to Javascript with Fable (F# + Babel), so that's also an option. I haven't fully vetted Blazor yet, but it seems good. Clojure can also run on the server and on the browser with ClojureScript.

The only other option I see is going fullstack Javascript, and I hate Javascript.
There's a language design tradeoff - Python is is the result of the designers almost never saying "We should do this to make Python faster, although it would make the language slightly harder to program in."

This even goes as far as choosing not to make improvements that improve performance but make the implementation more complex (for example adding a JIT), which allows Python to continue to add language features.
No face, just mask recognition ? - I may like it, as here no person bothers to remind about it.

But imagine..

"someone's mask slipped down his nose.. starting faces recognition in 3.. 2.. 1 second"

I'm scared of using tube since some women cough straight on to my face and then just said "I have mask exemption", no apology - with no time for me to react, I could only tell her "I don't care about your exemption or which virus you don't have, just cover your mouth when you cough !" - I think is a cultural thing - here in London no one is doing any of this.
> There is currently a push to vaccinate children which is technically irresponsible since they won't suffer symptoms

Vaccination isn't just about preventing COVID symptoms, but also slowing the spread.

> and would reach a better immunity they will never get with the vaccine.

Do you have an article about this, preferably one written recently that takes the Delta variant into account? The CDC doesn't really have information about COVID re-infection rates [0], so I'm not sure how much immunity is really given by getting infected compared to getting vaccinated.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe...
Strawman. No one said you shouldn't speak about the truth and reality. I'm saying not to give them a demeaning label.
It’s time to stop misleading consumers about recycling
> but damnit this is our culture, for better or worse! And we should preserve it.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's our culture and it's our life. Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens instead of being in touch with nature and living off the land or pursuing our own passions? Yeah, it is. But it is what it is. We are defined by our experiences, memories, and stories, and the only way to preserve digital media is to have a copy.

This is what got me into digital hoarding. I hated having so much emotional investment in things that I couldn't even access like old cartoons and movies, videos from youtube, or websites. Even worse when it's an old forum with conversations and activity from your teenage years, and the forum goes offline (this has happened to me with Bungie.net, though thankfully I was able to archive at least my gameplay stats).

I got 3 12TB hard drives this year (1 primary, 2 backups) and already see myself running out of room soon. It probably cost around $600 total, but it's been 100% worth it. I plan to expand in the near future to make sure I have plenty of room for everything I want without having to leave out anything that's really special. I love being able to re-live media experiences from my life, share them with loved ones, and even revisit moments that were defining for me in some way or another.

It's a shame that our culture is so based on consuming media. But the bright side is that it's the easiest kind of culture to preserve, compared to things like a physical book or dance, so I highly recommend others to check it out and be a part of the digital preservation world.
Iridium already offers a positioning service with its satellites.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YE1HZ
These people act like mRNA vaccines are 100% understood and there is no room for debate
EW decoys, early warning radar, AWACS and so on is useless against passive sonobuoys, satellites, stealth camera drones, and a missile with dual-mode guidance.
^half hearted bug bounties
Doesn't the state already ban nudity/language on public broadcast, film, and radio?
The challenge here would be that nesting levels can be added inside or outside the previous level, so to prevent reflow, bracket size would be dependent on order of addition and could vary wildly between different "nests".
The point, I think, is that laypeople and scientists alike fall further and further into the fallacy of appeal to authority: 'a scientist said it's true, therefore it is true!' (for simplicity, true == a fact correctly expressed).

That thing may be true, but the rising disdain for not accepting a conclusion when the evidence isn't presented alongside is worrisome. The difference between science and religion is that science draws conclusions from reproducible research. Yet - especially now - many people take the naked word of 'a scientist' the same way a religious fanatic takes the word of their spiritual leader.

This definition gave me a lot of clarity: an expert is someone who has, can get, can make, or can cause to be made - and presents - evidence that supports their conclusions.
I'm so sick of people equating seat belt laws w/ Vaccine&Mask mandates. For the 1000th time: Seat Belts affect you, Masks&Vaccines are about other people.
>I find it very hard to believe that anyone is still "on the fence" about it.

>And there it is--this doesn't sound like a person who is weighing their options in good faith. It sounds like someone who is already convinced of what the truth is.

Pot, meet kettle.
You think that people should be treated as terrorists because they have a different political opinion than you do?