skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>>as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist"

Well they change what "anti-vaccine" means [1], so now I am classified as a "person who has been vaccinated but is Anti-vaccine" because I oppose any and all governments mandates that would force a person to be vaccinated, or would impose conditions on them by government to participate in society.

private companies can impose them but government should not, not if we want to claim to be a free society.

Due to my position against authoritarian policies I am officially a "Vaccinated Anti-vaxxer" a oxymoronic label only government could come up with.

[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
No, I simply think that intelligence of a crowd is measured by the smartest person there, not the size of the crowd. YouTube gives equal voice to a subject matter expert as to any single one of 10,000 quacks. Given that it is a lot easier to be a quack than a SME, there will always be more quacks. As a result, when you see a crowd of 10,000 quacks arguing with a single SME, you might wrongly assume that the SME is wrong.

To me the solution is to not play the game: don’t get your opinions on matters that require a SME on YouTube. Or give the SME 10,001 the exposure than the quacks. Or teach science and critical thinking skills in public schools such that people are less likely to grow up such that they easily fall for bullshit sold to them by quacks.
Ultra swimming
Except not. Google isn’t more powerful than most governments. They can’t kill or imprison people, or seize land or property. This is simply a false analogy.
Please don't make medical decisions based on crap you read on the Internet, and especially not based on articles about crap other people are reading on the Internet. Talk to a doctor. That's what they're there for.
The whole shift in manufacturing has seen a shift from holding supplies to in-flight just in time managment. Which for tiing up capital can prove advantages. Though you are more exposed to any up's and downs in that supply chain or price volitility.

However as things have general run fine, those fears and worry's soon diminished and more and more shifted from warehousing supplies to using suppliers and logistics chains as there warehouse.

Then that whole just in time mentality shifted to workers, so you have tempory/contract staff you can pull in when needed and drop when you don't, zero hour contracts and more money saved on the accountants sheets who did well selling of the old warehouse space to some house building company and made a nice balance sheet that year and far bonus.

This all goes fine until you get a hickup and the whole covid19 set a lot of dominios falling and not only highlighted how the supply chain works, but also opened up a few more cracks.

Which has been educational for some consumers who have for years and years enjoyed cheaper prices - all paid for by this accounting, logistics and off-shoring cheap labour etc.

How will it play out, well it will see price rises, often more than needed by some companies capitalising upon the opportunity, others being unable to rise prices as much and having to burden that extra cost. Some will have supply contracts that are tighter than others for supply and prices with penalty clauses, others not so. But that all boils down to insurance companies and reinsurance having a very interesting time ahead as the whole ripple effect plays out.

Will the system collapse - nope. It will adapt, over compensate and then as the fear and risk seem so far away, slip back into the same cost shaving until the next impacting disaster.

One thing though that will and does seem to be a changing is more divergence in production and with that, supplies. Which will only make the supply chain more robust overall. But then it will take a few years for things to settle and then be more years for all the knock on effect ripples to settle as well - be those government tax bills to pay for bailout or insurance/reinsurance companies and banks seeing the ripple impact play out in debts and claims.

As always we live in interesting times, just gets hard to stay interested sometimes when the news is so depressing in spin-tangent fear and doom.

Though one good thing has changed this past year - people have finally started to appreciate the little people who do all those jobs many take for granted. How long that appreciation will last is perhaps and will it be reflected in how much such people are paid for what they do is an aspect we can only hope changes. But sadly the whole working conditions of some supply chains at the production level has been an issue for a while, only now do we see that highlighted more from a consumer appreciation and understanding. After all in a crisis a bin collection person is more useful than another coffee shop (Though I'm sure some may have valid reasons to disagree)
Don’t rely on a competitive audience.
I think you could have just stopped at rich. Money helps anyone going through the US Justice system, regardless of color.
Media distortion is definitely a problem too, but it's not the only problem.

Solar geoengineering is the hobbyhorse I usually use as an example of this. It's an open secret (see e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01243-0) that most scientists in the field won't research it, partly due to safety concerns but partly because they think that decarbonization is the right policy and they don't want to risk "detracting from efforts to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions". Maybe that's the right judgment, but it's hardly free from motivation and agenda.
This. I wonder why more people don't understand the negative effects of open source (at least in the way it is practiced). It is essentially free labor for Apple, Amazon, and pretty much any big company that already understood how to use open source to get the benefits for their paid products.
I'm super excited with posts like these and the recent [1]. I've never been a digital nomad, but with this stuff, there's now one hurdle less :)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041
I just bought a home in "rural" Texas only 1 hour outside of downtown Houston.

Cell service is definitely spotty out here. The final selling point on this home was that it's serviced by AT&T Fiber. So I have gigabit internet. If AT&T goes dark for some reason -- I lose power, they lose power, someone cuts the line, whatever -- then I can't access the internet and can't call anyone unless I drive for a few minutes.

Offline first is a good thing to have but we do not have "better mobile networks" and "no internet" is only a rare case if you've stuck your head in a city.

At my folks' place on the other side of Houston there's zero bars of cell service sitting on their couch. But if I stand up then I get full voice and data cell service.
I'd have expected an article like this to include discussion of Naomi Klein's "Merchants of Doubt" which describes how 'respected scientists' have prostituted themselves to the fossil fuel sector (denying fossil-fueled global warming), to the tobacco sector (denying links between smoking and cancer), to the agrichemical industry (denying the link between pesticide use and bee/insect declines), and so on. It's a very long list and a very sobering read.

Another good one is "University Inc. The Corporate Corruption of HIgher Education (Jennifer Washburn)", discussing how Bayh-Dole and exclusive licensing, along with the infiltration of corporate managers into research universities has fundamentally altered norms in academic research, to the detriment of scientific integrity.

This kind of thing has happened in other countries, most notably in the Soviet Union under Stalin when Lysenko came to power. Fauci actually has some similarities to Lysenko, i.e. being primarily political creatures seeking to retain control of their institutions by whatever means available.
It reminds me of how video game companies sometimes create whole virtual file systems in gigabyte+ blobs to deal with the limits of OS file systems. They're probably less useful in 2021 with SSDs becoming the norm. With hard drives, the thousands of files a game uses would end up in little fragments all over the platters and lead to horrible latency and head thrashing.
Both can be true. Youtube is successful because it hosts so many videos. Downloading a few favourites doesn't impact their business model, but it allows me to save those few videos that I think don't deserve to be lost.
Qwik, a Resumable JavaScript Framework
The First Bank for Science
We want to change the world, and I would like to ask for your help.

When I was working as a scientist at Imperial College London, someone told me: “If the banks donated 1% of their profits to scientific research, cancer would be cured today.”

This statement stuck with me.

After I changed my career from science to work in fintech, the statement gave me sleepless nights wondering if there is a solution to increase funding in science.

After much brainstorming, my idea was that I needed to combine the source of money with science. Thus, the concept of Science Bank was born.

Science Bank is a bank to support science instead of, simply put, pay bonuses.

For example, Barclays Bank netted a net profit of 4.3 billion British Pounds in 2019. If 5% of it were invested in scientific research, that would be an investment of 218 million.

The contribution would be significant and increase UK’s research funding up to 25%. Considering that an average research project cost is 300k GBP, Barclays could sponsor 726 per year. One can only imagine what discoveries this would lead to.

Now, like many of you, unfortunately, I lost my mother this year to cancer. Following this event, I couldn’t sit still anymore and wait for banks to change; I decided to build a bank for science.

Science Bnk was born. www.science-bnk.com

(*Bnk stands for Bank, the UK financial conduct authority prohibits to call yourself Bank until the banking license is approved. We have just started our application.)

Our number one mission is to keep your money secure and deliver a flawless and innovative banking service to you. But as explained above, we are here to advance society by investing in science and technology - the ultimate sustainability investment.

Every year we accumulate an investment pot derived from our revenues and customer contributions. The investments are then distributed by our scientific committee, consisting of 20 academics all of high stature and national academies, to the best grant applications. The cool thing is, in the case of research leading to a great company, you as a customer will own share.

Now, this is a mega and costly project, and we are at the very early beginning.

Please support Science Bnk by signing up to our waiting list and give us a signal that you are with us and that we change the world together.

The more signups we have, the more funding we will receive, and we will impact science faster.
Any help is very much appreciated.

If you would like to know more, please contact me at daniel@science-bnk.com or connect with me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielbaeriswyl/. I would love to hear your feedback.
Tsafe: The Missing TypeScript Builtins
I had the same realism about secularism when a catholic became head of the big secularist-leaning party in my then county of residence. People were sure interested in his private feelings about sinfulness, or said that they would never vote for a party with a religious leader. The party angled itself as secularist, but that particular kerfuffle revealed it to be a highly contingent value of the membership (and of people generally).

It's good to know what people really care about, and what beliefs are negotiable.
I can't believe they've done this
Depending on the nature of the interpreted Python part of the code, you could get a 60-100 times speedup by using PyPy (no rewriting needed). Removing the GIL in CPython would only beat that if you could get 60-100 times parallelism.
Yes anti-vaxxers are looneys.

No they shouldn't be removed from the modern public forum because of that.

Don't let the two get confused. Just because someone is silencing people with stupid opinions doesn't somehow make those opinions less stupid.
I think the problem is less what YouTube is doing here and more that YouTube has this kind of power. If every country had 10 video Websites like Youtube that each had a 10th of the users from that country, and maybe some international users, then one portal taking a total ban-all hard-ass stance on misinformation wouldn't be a big deal.

tldr: Monopolies bad, YouTube bad, facebook bad.
Right, and also things like spelling and language change over time. As you probably are no doubt sensitive to. We should not -- and in fact cannot -- avoid this...

https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item102725.html
The problem is all down to the cost of moderation, nothing else. Maintaining YouTube profitability.

Troll farms are spamming all of social media with misinformation, and that makes it hard to filter out the actual rational voices in the discussion.

I don't know the solution, I really don't. Without some form of 'trust' label that gets vetted to drown out mere 'views' and 'likes'.

Just read an article that in 2019, 19 of the top 20 Christian sites on Facebook were generated by Troll farms in Eastern Europe.

It is all messed up (disclosure, I don't have a Facebook account) and I don't know how it gets fixed.

I am all for factual vaccine information, pro and con, but I am opposed to people learning any topic from trolls with an adversary agenda.

The anti-vax crowd has been very effective in killing off Trump supporters for the last two months, for example.
> 1) there are harmful _ideas_

There are, though. There are ideas that are harmful.

The idea that the Jewish population was responsible for the harms and ills of pre-WWII Germany was a devastatingly harmful idea.

> 2) that there is an authority that can certify some ideas as _safe_ vs _harmful_.

It's obvious to me that there cannot be a singular authority that makes such determinations.

But it does seem totally plausible to have a distributed network of actors, each making their own determinations, and each influencing each other about which ideas are harmful, and which they will tolerate within their sphere. After all, that's the basic concept behind the "marketplace of ideas".

You can sell into the marketplace, but YouTube doesn't have to buy what everyone is selling.

I think it's just as totalitarian to tell a private entity that they must host content they disagree with, as it is to tell a private entity that they cannot speak about a specific topic to others. It's the antithesis of the marketplace of ideas.

I think the actual underlying issue is that YouTube, and a few other select entities, have an absolutely massive spheres of influence and feel like monopolies within. That's what kills the marketplace.

So, I do think private entities are completely within their rights to restrict their platforms however they see fit. I think doing so is even necessary for an effective marketplace of ideas that seeks truth. But I think we should also look at anti-trust laws that prevent individual private entities from having such a dominant position over an entire space.
The Russians did/do this all the time, although mostly on the East Coast. There wasn't any reaction until they started moving missiles to Cuba though...
People never say what they mean. Just say: I am comfortable with Big Tech having the right to pick and choose which opinions are valid and I don't think it will backfire in any way that upholds the exploitation of the oppressed.

Or one could say: Though I was alive through the War on Terror, I don't think giving exceptions to restrictions meant to protect individuals and peoples from extreme concentrations of global powers will tend to go wrong. Those in power will only use the new powers in the cases that I agree with, and not go further.
And they are. One of the other 6 finalists were doing "Genetically-engineered pig kidney xenotransplantation". The idea is to "Genetically engineered pig kidneys that will increase the supply of transplantable organs by eliminating the antibody barrier to xenotransplantation."
You're wrong. This is not about the future. All of this works today.
Greenwald is a pretty solid source compared to a large amount of journalists though, even if he probably doesn't have a neutral opinion by now. But he tries and that is the difference.
Welcome to the club!

Almost two years of "two more weeks and we'll be out of this! just do your duty and we'll be free of this pandemic!"

I was very vaccine hesitant and would say I was coerced by government, private businesses (and the governments mandates handed to them), and by my peers. I ended up getting the vaccine recently but I am very scared of the potential consequences.

We need the world to rip off the bandaid and open up instead of our leaders prolonging this pandemic to gain more and more power.
Comparing an object store provider to YouTube is just pointless. It's not even close to being the same thing. If you cannot understand this difference, then we really cannot have a discussion.

If you are shooting 8K video and don't know what to do with it, that is on you. Just because you can does not mean you should.
I work with AWS on a daily basis and I agree with almost everything here. AWS is great at creating "new" and "exciting" services (with really bad names) but they are struggling with making them easy to use / understand.

I can see a future where foundational services (EC2, RDS, S3, etc.) fade into the background and combination services come to the forefront. One such service I would very much like to see is something to make Alexa development easier. Right now, you have to manually combine API Gateway, DynamoDB, Lambda, and lots of hard-to-use security stuff to actually get something up and running. I just have some code that I want to run when someone says "Alexa, tell my car to turn on the A/C".
That line of reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

One of my family members is also very hesitant to get the vaccine and gets all kind of anti-vaccine propaganda through various groups and channels. She takes that content as "reasonable" and "potentially true" even tho basically all of what I've seen is simply untrue. E.g. an article claiming there were more deaths due to covid vaccines than to covid, which is "backed up" by official NHS statistics. How did they arrive at this claim? Well they just said any recorded covid death with a recorded precondition didn't die due to covid but due to the precondition and any death that occured within 14 days after a vaccine shot was definitely because of the vaccine. I think I don't have to explain the logical fallacy in that argument, but it does make for a nice headline and many (most?) readers only read the headline. Who really takes the time to carefully read and see if the claim has any logical basis? To make things worse, this kind of "news" is regularly republished across multiple sites hiding the "data" multiple links deep (if directly linked to at all).

That's the kind of content many anti-vaxxers are exposed to on a daily basis. For your line of reasoning to make any impact it would mean that not blocking this kind of content actually weakens the positions of anti-vaxxers. However, I strongly belief the opposite is the case. Being exposed to this kind of content and treating it with similar credibility as other news/media is strengthening their position too.

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'm also not convinced that outright blocking it is the right move. Hindering it's discoverability (e.g. by downranking it in the so dangerous social media reinforcement bubble algorithmns) and somehow making clear that it might be of very low credibility might be a better approach. It might also be equally hopeless.
If you must use one, then the least worst based on your values. That may be different for everyone, but that's ok. That's democracy in action.
It seems like the original reporting was posted two weeks ago, and generated little to no discussion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28565121
Except they aren’t acting as an arbiter of truth. They are just regulating their own platform. It’s not a secret that they are doing this.
The video is still there... (and it was disappointing).
How about the ones you liked?

I was thinking about this a few months ago and wish there was some sort of background app that could keep and eye on my YT accounts likes and archive them.
It seems that many like to believe and follow leaders who affirm their beliefs even when they are caught lying repeatedly about important things. Posturing loudly and demonstrating confidence seems to trump all of the other principles for many.

It's similar but more emphasized with chimpanzees.

The problem is that we're not chimpanzees. We are smart enough to make very powerful technology, but not smart enough to use it sustainably.
> But what exactly did Amazon do here that was immoral or not ethical?

They made him "choose" between his wife and his works. Well they didn't actually made him choose, as the alternative was inconceivable, thus, they forced him to perform while his wife was in a death sentence.

That's the unethical part.
This is recent and not peer reviewed:https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

And here's some news from Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

I'd say that is pretty clear cut when looking at the numbers from Israel.
What's with the sermonizing? OP gave no indication he was contemplating a
donnybrook. Possibly the greatest clip related to "When was the last time you got
your ** kicked?" https://youtu.be/AfMbN_MzCpw
Yes, exactly. It's just so similar to forum spam. Free speech absolutists were far less in favour of free speech when it came to banning viagra-salesmen.

Like the forum moderators, it's perfectly okay for Google to just not want the headache of dealing with pests.
So you're saying the system works?
Is it possible something else happened in 2020 that might cause a change in crime rates? While not as drastic as in the USA, there is a common pattern in many countries. Total reported crime rate decreased. But murders went up. 8% in Canada, 8% in South Africa, 4% in Germany. Edit: Previously stated Japan went up incorrectly.
> It's the stifling of legitimate public debate

No, non-State actors choosing what messages to relay or not with their resources is fundamentally the conduct of public debate, not its suppression.
That isn't what this [1] article on hacker news a few hours ago says, in fact a lot of people in that thread expect the opposite issue by the end of next year - over capacity and job losses.

I know this is a stretch but I'm inclined to trust JP Morgan's understanding of the economy more than I do CNN's.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28687992
You can't argue with a cult. My entire wife's family are rabid GOPers and I have had multiple discussions where I have absolutely crushed them with facts and the outcome, nothing. They will simply deny anything that doesn't agree with their world view as "fake news" while believing anything Trump says without question.

How do you have a rational discussion like that? If folks can find absolutely zero common ground to agree on, there is no basis for any type of meaningful discourse.
If your inputs are immutable and you don't want to copy them that works too since if you're careful. Copy on write means that it won't be duplicated by default. Of course reference counting changes means you will be writing to the inputs by default but if you're just branching for a computation you can temporarily turn off garbage collection while you diverge. Disabling garbage collection for a short lived forked process can even make sense on its own terms.