skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Of course some of those titles and the agendas behind them are nuts. But you are confusing the veracity or not of certain facts, with how pleasant you find the messenger...

If I see a video of a US President saying no Generals recommended that US troops should stay in Afghanistan, and days later, I see the top US General saying he did recommended to the president to leave 2500 to 3500
troops on the ground...If you happen to watch
it on Fox News, it does not make it untrue...

In the case of some of the videos I suggested,
they relate to Johnson & Johnson vaccines.
Lets review, for example, some of the current
Lawsuits, including number of claimants they are
currently engaged in...

Pending Lawsuits Against J&J as of February 2021

=================================================

DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System

Number of Lawsuits - 550
Injuries - dislocation, loosening, metallosis (metal poisoning), revision surgeries

Pinnacle Acetabular Cup

Number of Lawsuits - 7,056
Injuries - dislocation, loosening, metallosis (metal poisoning), revision surgeries

Xarelto

Number of Lawsuits - 13,511
Injuries - severe, sometimes deadly bleeding events, blood clots, wound leaks, infection

Johnson’s Talcum Powder

Number of Lawsuits - 27,168
Injuries - ovarian cancer, mesothelioma cancer

"The company is facing smaller, emerging litigations for the
interstitial cystitis (IC) drug Elmiron and DePuy’s Attune knee implants. Elmiron litigation is in the beginning stages with a handful of cases filed in state courts, but lawyers expect hundreds more. People who filed lawsuits say
Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit failed to warn them that the drug could cause vision problems, particularly a condition called pigmentary maculopathy."

=================================================

Does it sound like you want to get a vaccine from them?

According to the CDC, and most of this thread...you are a nutter and vaccine denier if you dont.
> If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous

If the you argument proposed (blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices) was factual and I'm asking you to provide evidence of such how is that disingenuous?

> I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton

> Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf,

These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).

> Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors

Agreed, but who's the other good faith actor you're referring to here? YouTube?
We use this for work and it's a pretty slick product. Please add support for MQTT 5.0, or shared subscriptions!
Probably open a youth center to teach kids computing and get them off the streets etc.
>"Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain.

Which is fine I think, but why have Reddit or FB do the censoring (aside from things that are outright illegal). I don't much care if a bunch of Nazis or tankies are busy planning world domination on Reddit while sharing recipes. Why do you care?
Yeah, could really use some details about the hardware, especially when they mentioned energy efficiency, heat production, and performance in the article, but gave no comparisons to anything for their hardware.
The Atlantic had an article a few years back about how independent bookstores in Germany managed to be doing so well. As I recall, German law mandated that all books be sold at cover price. How Germany can have a different law on something so basic from other countries within the EU I don't know.
Curious - what changed their minds?
https://twitter.com/MailchimpStatus "Our Engineers are aware of login issues for some users. We’ll post updates here."
Are random trading strategies more successful than technical ones?
There’s quite a few medical practices which guidelines still recommend that do not show benefit in better or newer trials.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1104821
The RELEVANT Story
RELEVANT is a multimedia company whose purpose is to impact culture and give voice to what God is doing in and through our generation.......Our Mission
We’re twenty- and thirtysomething Christians seeking God and striving to impact the world around us.
Yes even public state sponsored broadcasters didn't take archiving seriously in the beginning of television.

Of course before the widespread adoption of videorecorders in the 80s the public could never rewatch anything. Nothing was meant to last.
You don't even need to think the election was stolen to argue that opt-out mass mail in voting is a transparently hilariously stupid idea if you care at all about a secure chain of custody secret ballot. You know, the thing we explicitly designed elections around after realizing how important it was given widespread abuse and fraud.

Lumping all these groups of people together as was done here is a great example of the mindless zombie tribalism going on, which in large part is a result of propaganda.

There is a pretty large closure of ideas that now get you pegged as "one of the Bad People" for even stating them publicly, without strongly held support. For example, even suggesting that our election systems in the US are horribly broken or just merely flawed, a widely accepted bi-partisan position just a few short years ago, puts you into the bucket of being a "horse-paste consuming, anti-vax, insurrectionist, conspiracy monger." I wish this was a strawman, but it ain't.
PSA: Gratispay is dead. RIP.
From a personal perspective, I don't want to have to wade through everyone else's "free expression", for the same reason that I don't want to have to wade through every company's advertisements. Experientially, I am less free when everyone can interrupt my brain space with what they want to shove at me. I want limited amounts of high-quality, interesting communication, not the noise of everybody's everything. (Think in terms of Shannon information theory.)

So I kind of see your point. Filtering out the garbage is no loss to me. It make me freer rather than less free. And yet...

The failure mode of the New Zealand approach is to have someone who is partisan hold the office of Chief Censor. Worse, someone who is a dedicate partisan might see the value of holding that position, and might deliberately, systematically seek it, hiding their partisan-ness until they obtained it. Sooner or later, someone's going to at least try.
Show HN: Railway – Configless Software Infrastructure
In my country people that are already double-jabbed and say they want to wait for the 3rd dose/booster are already called science deniers and anti-vaxxers, so that's that.
To be clear, I don't think anybody's wrong to consider such laws a violation of their freedom. I don't, but it's a personal judgement, not something where there's an obvious, objective right/wrong.

I think by rejecting the word "violated" you've materially changed the question, from a one about politics to one about semantics. There are many possible definitions of freedom and high among them is "the ability to do whatever you want". In this sense such laws obviously reduce freedom - as you state, it's a simple matter of definition.

But that's an uninteresting matter of word definitions. The question about "violating" your freedom is about your judgement as to whether it is a good or a bad thing for the law to restrict you in this way. You haven't said anything about that.
If all "legitimate" platforms ban hate speech, then users wanting to engage in hate speech will all go to some platform that radically allows all speech with disproportionately this undesirable speech. They will intermingle disproportionately with those spreading sexual abuse images, drugs, insurgent propaganda and instructional material, and other undesirable material. Facebook likely makes the problem worse by forcing these "hate speech" and "disinformation users" to be completely surrounded by people with repulsive content, instead of having their repulsive content critiqued and shamed by other users.

Having people with bad, hateful ideas out in the open I would argue is preferable to concentrating all these bad thoughts together with people that will reinforce that it is normal.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694236.
We need to start applying free speech to internet platforms as well -- an updated first amendment. Times have changed and these platforms can deny speech, effectively silencing political opposition. The people cheering it on are happy because their political opponents are being silenced. But imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. If you're a coward, you won't speak out against it. You'd rather relish your opponents getting deplatformed.
I think it also makes for compelling pictures, which was her primary goal at all times: marketing.
I am not convinved this is a logical metaphor. Robocalls directly bother every person on a list. A social media post goes to those who've consented (i.e. subscribed/followed) and other places the social media company decides they should go. I don't see what the two have in common.
There are a few slightly different positions. Several of these positions are more or less agnostic about whether or not the individual arguing for them wears a seat belt.

1. I don't like seat belt laws because I don't like people telling me anything, even if it's the right thing to do and I do it anyways.

2. I don't like seat belt laws because I'm a complete moron and don't want to wear a seat belt even though it's the unambiguously, obviously right thing, I don't like the seat belt itself. I may or may not think that other people should or should not also not wear a seat belt, but I'm mostly worried about personally being penalized for not wearing a seat belt.

3. I don't like seat belt laws because even if I'm wearing my seat belt, police can use it as a tool to pull me over and harass me.

4. I like seat belt laws because they encourage everyone, myself included, to do the right thing, and reduce the societal costs that I'd otherwise have to share if other people wear their seat belts.

"Just do the right thing" works for me as an individual, but I'm not just an individual - I am a member of a society, I contribute insurance premiums and tax payments that financially go towards first responders and health care that might be abused by people who don't do something as obvious as wearing a seat belt - not to mention the emotional, moral and ethical weight of driving around people who might be thrown through their windshield and splatter all over you and your car in a crash.
Agitative propaganda is a hell of a drug
> The scandal in my opinion is that a professor or phd candidate is paid by the state to do research and then the state has to pay again to license the contributions their employees made. Meanwhile the taxpayer who already paid for the research cannot access that research for free.

Ignoring the fact that you can indeed get the research for free if you e-mail the researchers... Who is going to pay for unlimited online access?

Somebody has to pay for it. It is not free to publish journals, or keep tens of thousands of them, with millions of articles, around indefinitely, for instant access by anyone on the web.

The only thing you can change is who is paying whom. Either you pay a publisher so that they maintain access. Or the people actually publishing an article pays the publisher (Open Access), in which case it's taxpayer money from the researchers' budget paying for it. Or you have lawmakers create some government subsidy for them to maintain access, or you have lawmakers create some government agency to maintain access. Other ways to pay include big private donors, universities, libraries, museums, endowments, foundations, societies, etc.

In all of those cases, someone will be paying. The question is, who, and how much? So far, nobody has offered to cough up all the dough. Maybe you can get Bezos, Bill and Buffet to chip in.
Americans can be so short sighted. Banning speech about election results is fine, because it's the "other" side that lost ...this time. It doesn't occur to people that the wheel turns, and next time youtube and facebook might side with the others...then what?
I think this is good will for sure, and 2k is a rounding error to the cost of most enterprise software, but the real problem with (most) FOSS is the lack of clear structure or organization in terms of payment. Not only who gets paid, but also how much to pay, how to quantity roles and work, spending if necessary, etc. That’s the real problem/opportunity for someone like Gratipay.
Are you ... trying to make a rule?
1. Are we agreed that "securing the network" means "having enough computational power that an attacker cannot out-compute us," and conversely that the security threats that Bitcoin protects against are via attackers out-computing the legitimate network? And that these measurements of computational power are opposed to each other (i.e., if the legitimate participants have more and more computational power, attacks are harder, and if an attacker has more and more power, the network is less secured)?

If yes, doesn't it follow that there's an incentive for the people who want a secure network to secure the network - by gaining more computational power - and for the people who want an attacked network to prepare to conduct attacks - by gaining more computational power?

(If no, again, why Nakamoto consensus instead of something else?)

2. Correct, but there seem to be multiple "blockchain" methods listed at https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#did-methods , and the spec itself suggests that you can verify a signature from a revoked key if the signature was timestamped via a ticking blockchain (like Bitcoin's).

If it's true that the spec doesn't require the use of Bitcoin or other Nakamoto-style blockchains, which I agree seems to be the case, then I agree with you that it shouldn't be a reason to reject the spec - but also it seems like the reviewer's comment could be easily addressed. Just say that the W3C won't standardize any Nakamoto-consensus-based specs because the technology is wasteful and not specifically helpful for this particular purpose. (The reviewer is also asking the W3C not to standardize any centralized specs, like the ccp/Baidu one or the GitHub one, which also seems like a reasonable request and an easy thing to fix.) Then the reviewer could withdraw those objections.

(Note that for timestamping, Certificate-Transparency-style logs can address that without mining: https://transparency.dev/ Right now the spec says "for example, it was anchored on a blockchain," without defining the word "blockchain," which most people interpret as a Nakamoto-style one. IMO it would be good if the spec instead mentioned CT-style logs. It's a small change, it wouldn't change the semantic content of that sentence, and it would address the objection that the spec encourages technologies that require mining - it's the only mention of blockchains in the core spec.)
Half wits sudo-apt-getting donated code only to turn around and insist that they don't need to implement any code appropriately. You owe them new features. And more And more. Until they break your mind body and/or soul.
Surely misinformation has had an impact, but how big?

I wonder how that compares to the perceived incompetence.

Some official sources are wrong some of the time, everyone's favorite example: they told mask were useless in the beginning.
They corrected course, but then told vaccinated people they didn't need masks anymore, basically making the same mistake twice.
They halted AZ, paused J&J, had a gazillion change of mind on boosters.
We need to be able to hear challenges to official sources.

So yes, the chilling effect can make it worse if they go unchallenged. And it's also not simply true that free speech would return either.
I had the same idea!
https://pay.builders/
Written by a Google employee. This totalitarian thinking is a perfect example why the US is declining so rapidly into a poorer oligarchy. He (Xir?) is convinced that vaccines are necessary for COVID, and that plebes that use his product are too stupid for "nuance". Thus it should be banned speech. Thinking about it, there were discussions even in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Russia: except that plebes went jail for them. They were the privilege of the very top: like Hitler discussing with Goebbels or Brezhnev with Kosygin. Or Pichai with Wojcicy in his oligarchical case.
who is saying people that have had COVID shouldn't vaccinate? because they're wrong.

Maybe not the second shot. But if you've had covid, you should 100% get vaccinated.
Agreed. Maybe its then a question of what is most likely, and also based on medical history of each person. What about this idea? We try to convince people instead, and not make it mandatory?
Agree, I saw multiple times that someone who actually discussing topic from their area from expertise, who tried to remove some hyperbole media added. For example he was saying that lockdowns (like an actual lockdowns) only made sense initially when there was a possibility to contain it.

The anti-vaxxers cut it out of context and spreaded it on FB and sounded like someone with credentials was basically saying that all precautions were not needed and this was all fake pandemic (this was a year ago, BTW before we had vaccines).
Well, the US sort of faced the situation that you were describing (fighting an enemy that killed six to ten million people in four years) and then passed a law similar to what you are describing. Have a a look at the Sedition act of 1918.

In hindsight it was a terrible idea, and was repealed in 1920.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-a...
What has 'social media' got to do with free speech? Who is stopping you saying what you want? If what you mean is that what write or say is not beamed on everyone's phone, that is not a free speech issue, it's that you can't persuade anyone to publish what you say, which is totally different.
That's an interesting theory, although I doubt that 19th century US farmers, among the most self-sufficient people in history, were lacking in religion, superstition, or conspiracies.
Citation needed. I looked into vigilance reports and it seems they seem to go to reasonable lenghts to untangle causes.
If money is donated you can bet that the giver will have some input on the work. It's human nature. If you want FOSS maintainers to be paid a living wage the likely outcome is that some percentage of the givers will have sway or defacto control of the project. At least employing the Maintainer makes that plainly visible instead of hidden behind a screen of deniability.

Besides because of the license FLOSS has a built in escape hatch if you don't like the direction a corporation is going. I recognize your concern I just think the risk is far lower than you do.
The lab leak is still not known or accepted by the wider public. Even after vanity fairs write up.
'Ciugud to be true': The story of Romania's best digital village
That's the thing, COVID is an "eternal war" as described in dystopian novels. If you describe COVID in war terms, then it justifies all sorts of atrocities.
Indeed. I rationalized it so: COVID is a wild enemy that will do whatever to survive at our own expense. We need to fight and wage all-out war, conscript, treat the wounded and comfort the widowed.
The Standard-Missile family from the US can all go faster than Mach 2.5. But land attack missiles have never needed to be particularly fast until recently.
I'm still learn about JIT but what happen if we JIT everything as in every single line of a Ruby app? Will it be way faster? So we don't have to wait for the JIT to compile during production?
Another possibility too is that your pings don't experience any packet losses, whereas actual data does which would increase the real latency.

In short, there are many potential differences between ping and actual latency.
Exactly!

Unless of course we're up front about what our goal/premise is. Then it's absolutely appropriate.

For eg.: "If we want to minimize the burden of disease from X in Y conditions, we should take Z course of action."

Other eg.: rather than saying "you should not urinate on the electric fence", a good scientist will say "if you want to minimize the likelihood of unnecessary suffering, you should not urinate on the electric fence."
Why would you want to remove videos of beheadings? Can there be a better example to teach people that ISIS is a wild barbaric horde that must be destroyed?

Continuing your line of thinking, what would you want to remove next? 9/11 videos of planes flying into buildings? Holocaust documentaries? Surely, these videos can give bad ideas to viewers...
>Society in general has been making chilling moves away from free speech

Private companies in the US have always had the right to refuse a customer anytime, for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Should a social media company be treated differently?
Nonetheless, you do seem to acknowledge that it’s possible while saying one should not even try. And yet this is oblivious to the fact that the only people who succeeded were among the people who tried in the first place.
Supporting your point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28695806

There’s been a lot of controversy lately about Robinhood/Citadel/GME/Reddit. And it looks like either Google might be taking sides, or that if you are powerful enough you can get Google to block some search results/suggestions.
No snob appeal, nor bragging rights with your rich friends (or well-to-do supporters of your museum).

No perceived scarcity, to (hopefully) appreciate in value as the uber-rich keep bidding up the values of very scarce goods.
I agree in principle, but I think it's worth exploring analogous examples. For example, doesn't the FCC regulate what is on TV in some form?
> Python is a glue language at heart. Complaining that it isn't performant is like complaining you can't drill a hole with a knife. Get a different tool and glue your stuff together.

I wish I could get a different tool. Unfortunately machine learning and data science live and breath Python. It’s an absolute disaster and there is no meaningful alternative.

Jupyter Notebooks can also die in a fire. Go ahead and call Python glue and say to use a different tool if you want.

Unfortunately Python is a black hole or inertia. The one and only good thing about Python is some really great libraries are written in Python. This has resulted in an environment where Python sucks but the cost to move to a language that doesn’t suck is astronomical.

Maybe I am complaining I can’t drill a hole with a knife. Call me in 20 years when drills have been invented and knife lobby has been abolished.
Major Quantum Computing Strategy Suffers Serious Setbacks
> If i remember correctly, the first thing I've heard about fake news were the farms over in Macedonia. Those guys realized in 2016 that you can make a pretty penny feeding Americans shit they wanted to hear, regardless of the truth.

> Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.

Not even. Russians noticed it and did the exact same thing, but everything that happens in Russia or is done by someone of a Russian ethnicity is connected to the Russian government when reported on in the US/UK.