skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
All anti-vaccine misinformation, right? I'm starting to worry how often these kinds of announcements include misinformation as only one of the things to be censored. The article is unclear whether the content has to be false or misleading, with phrases like:

"content that alleges vaccines cause chronic health effects or contains misinformation on the substances in vaccines"

Does that mean the European Medicines Agency would be blocked for listing Guillain-Barré syndrome as a possible (very rare) side-effect [1]?

What about statements like "Compulsory vaccination is wrong"?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca_COV...
AMD Aims to Increase Efficiency of Its Chips by 30x by 2025
Wonder what else it does or reports to the homebase. Why stop at location data?
It’s weird how it the surveillance apparatus creeps up slowly and gets accepted without much protest. It’s just like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot
Demuxusb: A program and toolset to analyze iDevice USB sessions
Isn't YouTube headquartered in one of those countries that officially consider foreign war crime tribunals directed at their citizens a reason to invade the responsible country?
Will pro-choice (aka anti-mandate) content, such as the NBA players speaking their minds when asked by the press, considered anti-vaccine? Will be curious to see where that line falls.
Likely we’d find it amusing, as China is mostly incapable of projecting force outside of its immediate region and I shudder to think about the condition of their coastal navy after a cross pacific journey.

That said, I believe your point is valid, but the comparison breaks down once you look at the nuance of the situation. If Mexico feels they can get a better deal by partnering with China to do joint fleet ops in the Gulf of Mexico then I’d say the US has done a very poor job of treating its neighbors correctly, and that needs to be reevaluated. It’s the same answer I have for China - Theyre doing a poor job of being a good neighbor to others in the region.

A more direct answer is that the US is doing the job on behalf of its traditional allies in the region who have claims over parts of the South China Sea which helps to maintain US soft power in the region.
It varies depending on the subject area and publisher. Some are free to publish, some have a few hundred dollars a page or more for color (as though they actually print them still), where others might charge thousands to balance the operation costs of a printing company along with journal subscribers. Some journals essentially demand a first born.
I don't have enough disk space to archive every video I've every watched.
If only Hacker News crowd noticed when thousands of videos with interviews, medical lectures, news footage and even congressional testimonies were removed for political reasons within the last couple years.
Pruneyard is inapposite here. The facts in Pruneyard turn on two crucial elements:

* The California state constitution granted a broader right than the US constitution, and the speech in question was required to be permitted under California, but not US, rules.

* The speech in question was admitted by both parties to not reflect upon the shopping center's views, nor was the speech disruptive to its activities. Thus, freedom of association isn't going to kick in.

That last part in particular is key. For social media platforms, it is DEFINITELY the case that the content they host is imputed onto their own views. Alternative sites like Parler or Gab are invariably referred to with a note that they host predominantly far-right content--these sites are known almost entirely by what they carry, not the principles the sites claim to espouse. Even for larger sites like YouTube or Facebook, the ability to find certain kinds of negative content on these sites periodically blows up into major media furors.

A more appropriate precedent is Miami Herald v Tornillo, which held that a Florida state law requiring newspapers to publish candidate replies to articles was unconstitutional.
While I see that funding will tend to constrict the research around the desires of the funders, it's worth considering that 'science' has also expanded into areas that don't deserve the title.

The softer disciplines are particularly susceptible to the style of the day but lust after the cloak of correctness (and status) that hard sciences wear.
It doesn't connect to your iPhone's hot spot, but your daily iPhone is able to detect the other iPhone's presence just like it detects AirTags and logs that info.
TitleGate: Google’s Sloppy Rollout of Auto-Generated Title Tags
>what evidence would convince you it is feasible?

Short answer: a bill that passes.

Again, I’m not arguing whether it’s technically feasible. I’m saying the US has not yet shown its politically feasible. I think you’re conflating my position on these.

That latter part is a much tougher and complex problem but every bit a necessary part of the solution. So take just a very small subset of that problem: how do you plan on mitigating the insurance industry’s influence in preventing the passage of a bill that goes against their interests?

Once you figure that out, you’ll have dozens of other political concerns to solve before you ever get to consider implementing the technical solution.
Open source backend-as-a-service provider Appwrite raises $10M
Politicians have a lot of overlap in their beliefs, but anything relevant to it will be waved through the legislative process without much comment. We're all left to focus on the remains where there isn't much consensus.

"Settling Politics" amounts to everyone agreeing about what to do on every matter all the time. Otherwise politics just isn't going to be settled.

If the question is why science hasn't settled a particular debate, the answer is typically that the facts aren't really in question, and there is a secret debate about who is going to have to wear the costs.
> I think the OP's point was that it forces you to do all the number crunching via those extensions [...]

Almost. If you're using C extensions for performance, those extensions can release the GIL, and then you get parallelism in CPython. Although if you've got a bunch of small steps, Amdahl's law is going to bite you as each step needs to re-acquire the the GIL to proceed.

Note that for Numpy, I don't know which functions/methods actually bother to release the GIL, but it's possible in theory.
One interesting open source funding method I stumbled on recently was Tidelift which I posted recently[1].

Otherwise I see contributing to open source as essential for my company and we are still quite small but already have one dev that has been full time supporting a critical open source project for about 6 months. I'm not sure why others don't see it that way.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28487153

Edit: Just realized he develops the package that lead me to discovering Tidelift, small world.
> trying a little too hard to capture some Apple outrage attention.

Exactly the vibe I got.
re: West coast - one of the big wild fires got within five miles of Cupertino two years ago, local friends got evacuation notices before the fire was stopped, and all homes and I imagine even manufacturing buildings have to be built to withstand an earthquake all along the coast.
2500 years later, Aristotle is still correct, and the three modes of rhetoric must work in concert or you're doomed to fail.

Logos, Ethos, Pathos: you need all three. "This is true. I am trustworthy. This true thing is important."

It is very frustrating, especially to many of my fellow scientists, that bellowing "THIS IS TRUE" as loudly as possible is insufficient. But it is insufficient.
After a major update, Shopify’s app store is becoming a big business ecosystem
> but the focal length afforded by the lenses is fixed

That seems weird to me because when I look at a screen at a different distance to the one I'm using I can see the other screens getting blurry just like in real life.
I think people are talking completely passed each other. The conservative crowd will debate the severity of the existing pandemic and whether the cure is worse than the illness. The vaccinate all crowd well just wants everyone to be vaccinated, the severity of the crisis is a forgone conclusion. I think both points of view have strong merit but its hard to mend the two views together they just don't really mix. The whole thing ends up being labelled "misinformation" because we aren't even on the same page. I find myself in the conservative camp which is a rare occurrence for me. But I can't for the life of me understand how people can be so enchanted with the heads of our federal organizations when the data behind their words does not stack up. Misleading the importance of data, stretching and inverting the burden of proof we should expect from our government ultimately makes me see them as liars. Watching liars speak is one thing but to see a whole populace see positive meaning, smiling nodding and go on to shout down anyone who tests the rhetoric, its blind fanaticism.
There is an obvious trend on HN turning against Apple since the image hash stuff. Search 'Apple' in the last month and you'll see stories about Apple screwing over blind people, copying other people's ideas, screwing over employees, removing apps from the app store, disabling FaceID if you try to change the screen etc.

From my POV (a non-Apple user) they have not changed, they have always been pretty anti-consumer. But even I can see that most of these stories have a clear agenda and are exaggerated to capture the current anti-Apple outrage sentiment. That kind of discussion doesn't do anyone any favours.
Somebody introduces a new technology to address these concerns every couple years and it doesn't go anywhere. These aren't actually problems to a lot of users. That's the real problem that needs to be solved - awareness. And that's a lot harder than taking the identity solutions we came up with in the Identity 2.0 days and adding a blockchain.
How does YouTube separate content presented as fact vs content presented as opinion? False facts is one thing, but what if someone is just hesitant about vaccine safety?
> Do you think that YouTube did a good thing by allowing that content?

They didn't do a good or a bad thing - they were a blank canvas someone put their art(video) on. Recently, that blank canvas is only willing to have certain art present on it - that's not a good thing. The only thing keeping it going is an inertial mass of subscribers, which over [possibly a long] time will dissipate.
British army to start driving tankers as queues for fuel continue
I've found iPhones way too fickle to trust them to stay off. If you plug in a charger or tap the power button they power back on. If you don't want to be tracked turn off your phone and put it in a faraday bag.
You might know this already, but you can also just ask the authors, and they'll often send it to you. Definitely not as convenient as Sci-Hub, however.
I think you would have to leave your phone home a lot more often than on days you don’t want to be nailed to where you are.

Imagine a case where evidence puts you near a protest or crime scene while your phone is home. That’s coincidence, but if your phone also was home only at the three days three similar events happened, it becomes circumstantial evidence.
It is implausible that people have noticed that serving "Christians" and "African Americans" content they want to click on is profitable, but nobody has put the data together to realize that they can do the same thing to "Liberals" and other favored groups here on HN.

Touché.
You're just trying to be a smart-ass.
>The multiplier is net negative for software engineers

Good.

>It does so while providing essentially free labor for large organizations with agendas that are rarely positive for society

And? The only downside that I can see is that corporations might take your work without providing their modifications back. Copyleft licenses mitigate this issue.
I'm surprised spamgourmet.com has not been mentioned - created-on-use forwarding addresses with a built-in self destruct. It is a superb solution.
https://github.com/neonfuz/rxkit perhaps?
You don't need to. There are troll farms everywhere there is a critical density sufficient to pay for them to exist through ads. That condition is sufficient.

It's not even just about politics. There are multiple large troll farms unbelievably dedicated to producing completely bullshit "life hack" videos that blatantly don't work as posted. This is non-trivially expensive content to produce (not Hollywood-level expensive, of course, but the video content is beyond "point an iPhone at it" level by quite a ways), and it is produced by the bucketload, because the ad viewership is there.

These are parasites that attack any sufficiently-sized interest group of any kind.
Yes but apparently other iPhones can also detect it and send the location just like with the AirTag even if the iPhone is turned off. That was a surprise.
>... you know you can trust it. If the URL is someone else, you know not to trust it.

If HN readers are the "you" here, then that's accurate. If you're referring to your average person, then I would argue that the majority don't know this.
You're alluding back to the moderation problem. I claimed that discerning between pros and wackos is turing complete, and you have indeed shown that discerning between ANY kind of allowable content A and disallowed content B is also turing complete - you can get arbitrarily close to the line between A and B, so any algorithm (or human guidelines) is necessarily going to have issues on some edge cases.

I agree, you're absolutely right. Still, I claim it should be done, and maybe the content you listed should also be disallowed.

I'm not saying these videos and discussions shouldn't exist, I'm suggesting that perhaps it's time we dispelled the idea of a global Town Square - one platform for all content. It's a recipe for disaster. We've seen what can happen and what will continue to happen. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube - how many times do we have to watch a global town square devolve into shit flinging, disinformation, and hate?

Let's stop pretending that there can be a global free speech forum and that we can have some fair minimum ruleset to moderate all content on that forum.

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.

The entertainment that dominates Youtube is minimally severe if incorrect or bad faith, so YouTube would have minimal regulation.

Content on personal health and experiences could go into HealthTube, where moderation exists to prevent making strong medical claims or pushing bullshit (the "pay an influencer to say that ElaMexaTrin cured my covid" problem), but people are otherwise allowed to post what they want about their personal experiences.

Content with strong scientific claims on health would go into MedicalTube, which is regulated and heavily moderated to prevent commercial interests and disinformation.

Really, if YouTube was forward thinking, all of these could be different subsets of the same platform. But instead we have one platform with the same erratic hand of moderation slapping things down left and right based on whatever changing ruleset seems convenient today.
They seem to be using Human moderators and only banning people/channels with a consistent track record and very clear violation of their admittedly arbitrary red line.
I didn't answer the question because it was a non-sequitur and it was obvious the question was being asked in bad faith to trip me up, like a cop who asks how many drinks you had after you just told him you hadn't had anything to drink.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. If someone were to do a good job regulating them and make the situation better I'd approve. If someone were to do a bad job and make things worse I'd disapprove.
Earlier post already on front page:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693060
When everyone knows it, I agree. As long as it is not mentioned anywhere, and people do not write hundreds of comments, its just a failed captcha that appears more often when someone writes something in range, possibly forcing them to rethink their argument. Its no solution for all, more an interesting thought.
Maybe we need a new URI scheme and associated address resolution system for videos and other user generated content?
Thank god, praying that this includes those vagabond anti-booster folks (JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE VACCINATED DOESNT MEAN YOU'RE FULLY VACCINATED!!!)
Well many developers end up using different languages for this reason. E.g. Go and node.js are popular and both do asynchronous stuff effortlessly (even though they are single threaded typically). And if you use Jython (python on the jvm), you can actually do threads properly as the Gil is not a thing there: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1120354/does-jython-have... Likewise, Iron Python also has no Gil apparently. Both are running quite a bit behind PythonC at this point unfortunately.

For properly multi threaded stuff, people use more higher level languages like Erlang, Scala, Java, Kotlin, Rust, C++, etc.

In general batch processing data is both IO and CPU intensive (e.g. parsing, regular expressions) and a common use-case for Python. You could say, data science is actually the primary use case driving its popularity.

Python is effectively single threaded for that stuff. Using multiple processes fixes the problem well enough though. Conveniently the module for using processes looks very similar to the one for using threads, so switching is easy once you figure out why shit doesn't scale at all (been there done that).

But using processes also adds some complexity. The good thing is that it makes doing why the Gil is needed (sharing data between threads/processes) a lot harder/impossible. The bad news is that it's hard. Typically people use queues and databases for this.

ETL systems like Airflow tend to use multiple processes and queues instead of threads as using python threads is kind of pointlessly futile (from a making things faster point of view). However, with Airflow a pattern that you see a lot is that python process workers are typically not used and instead it is configured to use one of several cloud based schedulers (e.g. kubernetes, ECS, etc) to schedule work. Basically, airflow is just used to orchestrates work where the actual work happens elsewhere and may or may not involve python code. A lot of the performance critical stuff is native anyway.
There's also Gab TV and several others.

Unfortunately, I actually believe that the people behind the YouTube censorship actually benefited from their censorship and scattering of the community by producing an environment where antitrust actions are far harder to argue because YT can now claim there are many "competitors", which none of the alternatives really are.

It first dawned on me that this was possibly a tactic when Google was catching heat for manipulating results. I found it odd that DuckDuckGo was given the duck.com domain that Google owned, free of charge.

It makes no sense other than that Google was trying to support controlled opposition in order to claim that there was a competitive market.
They talked about stack of libraries beneath you, not the execution stack. If an API call takes 10 microseconds because several "premature optimization is the root of all evil" abstractions in between then doing that just 10k times already nets you 100ms which is a very noticeable stutter. So with that limitation you are now forced to create elaborate data structures with caching etc to try to work around this slow API call. However doing the same querying in C++ without those abstractions where each call takes 10 nanoseconds means that you no longer have to try to create complex data structures to work around that slow API call, even if you do it a million times it would only take 10 milliseconds and maybe drop a frame.
Best Gaming Monitor Under $400
That's not the equivalent. The equivalent would be keeping Google employees from saying certain things on YouTube with their work accounts.
Sorry, did not mean to be insensitive but just pointing out that Kosovo’s existence in it’s current form has a lot to do with the actions of the US in the 90s, hence the statues and streets named after Bill Clinton. Not trying to minimize all of the history preceding that, but just saying that I think it is viewed as a US puppet state by Russia and Serbia. Definitely not trying to reduce all of the balkans to that set of conflicts - just commenting on Kosovo.
> threading doesn't give me any benefit due to the GIL

If your heavy lifting is done in C extensions, and those extensions release the GIL before doing that work, you can still get the benefit of parallelism within CPython.
Ask HN: When was the last time you were involved in a physical altercation?
> Even better vaguely word it so it resonates with main stream media

This explanation doesn’t resonate with me. Research most often has incremental results that need to be carefully qualified. Isn’t the far bigger problem that mainstream media takes subtle research results and “simplifies” them for the public by adding certainty and often mis-interpreting the results completely?

Political agendas have been recently systematically trying to erode trust in science. (Because science and truth does threaten some politicians.) The idea that science can’t be trusted as the high-level summary is exactly what some people want, and it seems to be working. But what is the alternative? We have nothing better. The point of science is to try to protect against motivation and agenda, and it does work sometimes. Even when people are motivated, when the methods are reproducible and the results are peer-reviewed, that does help filter out some of the badness. And if it’s not enough: what should we do to improve it?
You're embarrassing yourself now and you've proving the point about utter hysteria.

> the government is mandating the injection of untested corporate concoctions

They've been tested. Thoroughly. The results of those tests are public. And what's with the "corporate" scare word, there? Am I suppose to want my vaccine to have been brewed up by my neighbor or my local mom and pop drug store?

> you have been under prison lockdown home confinement for essentially 18 months now

No I haven't. No-one has. The lockdown lasted longer than two weeks but it finished last summer. Since then I've been shopping, eating at restaurants (usually outdoors, but indoors is available) and seeing friends. My children are at school, many people are back in their offices.

> they will come for you too one day, they always do once you have outlived your usefulness.

I'm going to go ahead and quote yourself back to you: you seem to have lost all ability to objectively see what is going on.

But yeah, yeah, I know. We're all idiot sheep, you're the only one with the 20:20 vision to see what the rest of us idiots don't. It couldn't possibly be that we're all informed and came to a different conclusion to you. Nope, not possible.
Zuva Bags $15.75m, Sets Out ‘DocAI’ Strategy
Navistar confirms data breach involved employee healthcare information
I think there's a hardware component required. Unless it's only in a beta OS, I have and Xs and I see a different wording for that setting. Mine omits "and powered off."
OK, that seems fine. I know YouTube's automatic DMCA policies are notoriously bad, but it sounds like this is a more accurate manual approach.